Playing Parvez Rasool: Politics and Pawns

I am glad they left Parvez Rasool out. I am glad because by the act of not sending him — the "first Kashmiri" to represent India — on the field, we are witness to varied kinds of politicking.

On Saturday, Aug 3, India was playing the 5th ODI against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo. We were already in the lead. Of the 15-man squad, Rasool was the only one who was not given a game.

The result was outrage. Why treat a Kashmiri as different when you want him to be India's hope?

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah expressed his anger with his usual dramatic flourish: "Did you really have to take him all the way to Zimbabwe to demoralise him? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just do it at home?"

The CM is insulting the Indian team, the state he rules and Rasool, especially the latter when he pleaded on the eve of the last match to "give him a chance". Had there been allegations of malpractice or matchfixing, would he have been as quick to ask the team to treat a player from J&K without any favour?

One does not have to think too hard about the machinations and Mr. Abdullah is not the only one.

Kashmiri Pandits who hardly ever referred to Vivek Razdan and Suresh Raina are now emphasising their Kashmiri roots. Clearly, it is one of those 'use the populist sentiment' moments. It is not the same though, for Parvez Rasool lives in Kashmir and, unlike the other two, he has to 'earn' the India cap for reasons beyond cricket.

Does everything in J&K have to do with militancy? Rasool, a resident of Anantnag, has experienced it first-hand. When there were militant attacks in Bangalore in 2009. As India TV reported:

Police along with a few other people detained Rasool, who was a member of his state’s junior cricket team, as they had been staying within the premises of the Chinnaswamy Stadium which became the target of the militants.The youngster was later cleared of all charges and continued with his cricketing career to achieve greater heights.

“I dont want to talk much about that incident...Whatever happened back then is something I have left behind me and followed cricket. Now that I have worked so hard, I have got such good results,” said Rasool.

On the one hand, there is the real issue of the alienation of those from the state, and then there is a hint that even a sop would do. The word sop is not used though; it is called symbolism. That does not change anything. The Times of India said that not giving him a single game defied "both cricketing and symbolic logic". The first being "to test its bench strength in conditions quite different from home against a weak opposition".

This does not sound like an opportunity, but an insult. Experts might differ, but a weak opposition would be like playing at the nets. Besides, the tokenism would fall flat:

It would also have given a player from Jammu & Kashmir an unprecedented India cap, the symbolic value of which could have been huge. Sadly, the men on the spot didn't seem to understand this and nobody higher up nudged them either.

How different would this be from bookies placing calls to swing a match? The BCCI does not, and must not, decide what happens on the ground. And the BCCI is not the government of India. It is the GOI that will ultimately have to work with the state for real decisions, and not mere symbolism. As the report further states:

The first cricketer from J&K team to be selected for the national cricket team, Rasool is also a beacon of hope for players from a region which felt marginalized from Indian cricket's mainstream. By playing Rasool, who is by all accounts competent enough to hold his own against Zimbabwe, the Indian team could have brought joy to Kashmir and given the player confidence to get into the big league.

This is just patronising. Is a Kashmiri only competent enough to play Zimbabwe? If that is a weak team, then how will he gain confidence against bigger players? I read somewhere that his selection was fast-tracked after a good haul against Australia in India.

Kashmiris feel and are marginalised in several areas. And, it may not sound right to say it, but not everyone in the state is looking to represent India in cricket. And not everyone would be crestfallen over this 'picnic to Zimbabwe' because people continue to be killed and have to battle everyday issues.

If only there were sops and symbolic gestures to assuage those.

© Farzana Versey

Silencing Kashmir? The Valley’s Voices

Everyone is singing the Kashmir tune. An all girl-band has been banned. Most of us outside, and many in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, had never heard about them until this happened. The problem is not that one should refrain from opposing such censorship, but how the arguments are reduced to basics.

Most engagement with social issues is increasingly becoming one of transaction. This conscience barter is extremely populist and the agenda is clearly not to topple political correctness. Those who profess freedom of expression do not entertain even a devil’s advocate stance, which only reveals how close-minded and muzzling such ostensible independent thinking is. If we want to permit all kinds of thought, why do we seek to curb what in our opinion is regressive?

Three high school students – Farah Deeba, Aneeqa Khalid and Noma Nazir – formed a rock band.  Pragaash (First Light) has performed only one concert. Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmad, Kashmir’s state-appointed grand cleric, issued a fatwa asking them to “stop from these activities and not to get influenced by the support of political leadership”.

Odes are being sung to their talent, their courage. The right to expression does not need a quality certificate and those who back them could well be ignorant of their music. It is about not being allowed to do what they like.

I agree with this, but having lived all my life in Mumbai, the pivot of modern India, I can cite several instances where parents have objected to their teenage children participating in cultural activities, let alone taking an initiative to independently perform. This information is crucial because we use the convenient subterfuge of censorship to camouflage our own dissonant private behaviour. When we speak about Pragaash we are already dealing with young women who have not been stifled, have been exposed to world music, managed to train, buy equipment, and market themselves in a state that is considered repressive. It is rather unfortunate that even though they are way ahead than many of their well-wishers, they are now the object of sympathy.

Those fighting for their freedom are essentially offering condolences. After saying, “We are with you”, has support for the band gone beyond disingenuous analogy?

***

Pragaash’s manager and teacher Adnan Matoo, quoted in The Washington Post, said: 

“They feel terribly scared and want an immediate end to this controversy once for all. First, the girls had decided to quit live performance due to an online hate campaign and concentrate on making an album. But after an edict by the government’s own cleric, these girls are saying goodbye to music.”

As it did not start with the cleric, but an online hate campaign, it would fall under cyber law. Unfortunately, in India the hyperactive media ensures people are drugged and religion takes centrestage in almost every argument. Is the Grand Mufti’s fatwa the final word?

Mr. Mattoo follows the pattern set by the mainstream: 

“I know it from my last eight years’ experience that we could have easily dealt with the online abuse. We were failed by the government-run mufti, who asked us to forget our music and declared our band against the religion.”

While Indians have been arguing for long about the separation of state and religion, it is not possible in a country where building of a temple is the main agenda of the largest opposition party and the ruling party panders to all manner of minority votes. There is also talk about the Islamisation of Kashmir. Part of it may be attributed to the influx of jihadi elements in the separatist movement. However, intellectual discourse too harps on this aspect and uses ‘progressive’ quotes from scriptures, forgetting that much of what we call contemporary culture did not exist in the time of prophets and messiahs.

Why did it take a month for the Mufti to issue a diktat? Was he under political pressure, too? This might seem like a shocking query, but his mosque comes under the government’s purview. J&K isn’t really a rocking state.  Since the concert was for the paramilitary forces, there is a likelihood of intense anger among the locals. Stories of abuse of women by the security forces are a constant refrain in the troubled area. Why did the hate campaign against the girls not address this and instead choose to harp on their ‘un-Islamic’ vocation?

Pragaash band members

One reason is that the moment they criticise the ‘saviours’, they’d be dubbed militants. Anonymity might imbue them with temporary courage, but even in their unknown status there is a need for self-recognition. This is as much of an identity need as the cultural space for freedom. It is their azaadi (freedom) call versus the azaadi of what they perceive to be the copped-out coddled lot. A more nuanced reading would be that Islam, with its broad brush-stroke possibility of what is haraam (heathen), can factor in their ire and keep it alive. Politicians wake up. Pontiffs wake up. Separatist organisations wake up.

This is not to imply that there have been no strictures on modes of dressing, education and cultural activities. But these certainly do not happen in Kashmir alone.  It does not make them right. However, should there be no room for more than simplistic ideas of right and wrong?

The chief minister, Omar Abdullah, was applauded for standing by the band members: 

“I hope these talented young girls will not let a handful of morons silence them. Shame on those who claim freedom of speech via social media and then use that freedom to threaten girls who have the right to choose to sing.”

However, on Headlines Today he said he had not asked them to sing so he cannot ask them to continue to do so. He would be willing to provide security for them, though.

The BJP only needed this to further its anti-Islamic position. Its party president in the state said: 

“It is an attempt towards 'Talibanisation' of the society by certain fundamentalist groups who are uncomfortable with the return of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.”

The BJP ought not to speak out of turn. Its record in giving women liberty is abominable. The rightwing does not permit even the celebration of Valentine’s Day, using the same argument that the Mufti has used – it is western culture. Besides, the BJP has earlier had an alliance with the current party, the National Conference. Did they reach normalcy?

***

One cannot wish away politicisation. In fact, pop culture is political, in that it attempts to convey popular consumerist sentiment as retail therapy. Does this exclude political theism?

Mehbooba Mufti, president of People's Democratic Party (PDP), was being intimidated on a TV debate. Despite it, she made a most reasonable comment by saying that as a believer although she would not abuse a religious leader, she could well disagree with his views. Did this get any attention? It does not suit the archetype.

As happens with anything to do with Islam, when in doubt bring in the Sufi. The prevalence of Sufi music is mentioned as an example of the existence of such open expression in the Valley. People do not realise that it is deeply rooted in religion. It may not be seen as theological, but the fact is that it almost always addresses the Higher Being and seeks to drown the identity of the singer into the pool of devotion. The reason Sufi music is now being given a wider platform is because it falls well and truly into the ‘music bazaar’ as a commercial product.

Is this what drives liberalism? Asiya Andrabi, leader of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat, has had some amazing achievements to her credit – blackening the faces of women, shutting down beauty parlours. But, then, her political affiliations do not lie with India, as she openly states. For a moment, let us stand aside and check whether what she says and what some feminists do is much different. She believes that women are objectified; feminists think so too when they discuss certain advertisements where women expose their bodies. How do we decide to accept one version and not the other?

***

If this is indeed a larger issue about artistic license, then why did the Pragaash supporters have objections to rapper Honey Singh soon after the Delhi gangrape? His song, “Main balatkari hoon” (I am a rapist) was not new. It was obvious that this was not about concern, but a need to be acceptable and part of a trending movement. Among the many voices was one of senior journalist Vir Sanghvi, who used the social network to say: 

“For God's sake, Bristol Hotel. Cancel the Honey Singh show. Are you guys in the rape business or the hotel business? If the Bristol does not cancel the Honey Singh show then I would urge every decent Indian to boycott the hotel.”

No one seemed to have realised that the terminology, “rape business”, itself was offensive. Besides, how does one define decency? 

The moral spine of the amoral and unconstrained tends to be willing to bend as the occasion demands. Had there been no immediate ‘case’, there would be no such importance given to the singer or his lyrics. If we understand that art does have freedom – in films, paintings, music – then it follows that there ought not to be conditions that curtail it. Why is one boycott legitimate and another not? Why are the words of liberal sages acceptable and the concerns of the socially-conservative reprehensible?

MC Kash

Omar Abdullah too raised the question about local rapper MC Kash, wondering why he has not been banned for his obscene lyrics. This is telling and not surprising, for the singer questions the authorities and the security forces: 

“You sit your ass down & don't make a sound/you take off that Pheran, you Mother Fucking clown - Words said by Indian Forces durin' a crackdown.” 

Is such obscenity not proactive rebellion?

The online campaign referred to the girls as “sluts” and “prostitutes”. These words are used by supposedly reasonable people in the social media for what they look down upon, be it the item girls in Bollywood films or the increasingly brash young women who do not consider nudity to be an issue. One rarely hears any applause for them. Therefore, who really is in a position to take a high moral ground?

Kashmiri dancers for video albums

Perhaps we’d like to consider this story about dancers and singers in Kashmiri music albums. One of them, Sweety, said: 

“My mom accompanies me to the bus stop when I have to go to Srinagar. My profession annoys my maternal uncles, neighbours talk (bad things) about me.” 

A choreographer explains: 

“Most of them join to support their families after the death of their father. It comes as a handy option because they come from uneducated families and here they do not need any educational qualification. I request them either do something else or to be careful.”

This is a universal concern, more so when people cannot do “what they like” even in their daily routine because death is not too far away. Because singing and dancing are not about the luxury of freedom, but the last resort of orphaned hopes. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Who Owns Kashmir?

Rahul Gandhi, like the rest of the Nehru-Gandhi clan before him, will never contest an election from Kashmir. When he says, “I myself am from Kashmiri family and want to have lifelong relations with the people of Jammu and Kashmir”, it is a declaration of the divine right of the potentate in a jigsaw puzzle of a state.

A delegation of panchayat leaders from the state visits him in Delhi; he lands up in Sonmarg and tells the people he wants to “understand your pain deeply”. This makes former chief minister Farooq Abdullah so emotional he blurts out, “We are Indians and we will die as Indians. No power can separate us from India. A day will come when children of Rahul and Omar will see fruits of steps taken by us.” In July, Hurriyat leaders met Pakistan’s foreign minister on her official trip to India.

So, who is ruling the state?

Rahul Gandhi organises a corporate picnic with big industrialists. Many promises will be made. Perhaps for more formula racing, tulip gardens, skiing facilities, to ensure tourist traffic. These are mirages used to market the state to others. He wants to “connect Kashmiri youth with the development process”. There is no introspection as to why that has not happened yet.

>>Read the rest in Express Tribune

In Custody: Kashmir

There are custodial killings and there are custodial deaths. It is rather intriguing that when a member of the ruling party dies in police custody, the opposition demands a probe. The BJP jumps in. This is Kashmir. How many people die within the confines of prisons, and how many protests are staged? 

Saeed Mohammad Yousuf, a member of the National Conference, was accused by two colleagues of corruption, the new hip crime. He admitted to accepting Rs 11 odd million to get the two legislative posts. 

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah thought it was serious enough and transferred the complaints to the state home minister. This was on September 29. The next day Yousuf died in a police hospital. Abdullah says the crime branch was examining the case. 

This is real quick work. No doubt, taking money to get plum posts is a crime, but did those two get the positions promised? Would anyone really know if it had been kept within the party and Yousuf could have been thrown out? In comparison to what takes place in J&K, this is really a gamble and not at all unusual. 

So, did Yousuf's kidneys/lungs/heart fail because he had accepted a bribe and admitted to it? Or was he killed because, as his family alleges, he knew too much about the Abdullahs since he was close to them? 

Forget the bit about secrets. If he was indeed close to them, then Omar was perhaps trying to consolidate a cleaner than detergent image by showcasing a 'friend' as an example of his own honesty. Or, he felt betrayed. Or...

The leader of the main opposition the People's Democratic Party, Mehbooba Mufti, and activists staged a protest march. She demanded: 

"To ensure a fair probe into the death of the National Conference worker, Omar Abdullah must step down. Otherwise the probe would be nothing more than an eyewash."

While there is no doubt that this is a political move, it is rare. Besides, think about the analogy from the other scams. Is not the Congress on the mat for the Rajas and Kanimozhis?  
Resignations are often a way out, if it is forced upon 'loyal solidiers', something Yousuf might have done had he been given an opportunity. As CM, Abdullah has refused to quit. It is true that it might cause further problems, but it cannot get worse than it already is. 

His response to Mehbooba Mufti's statement about an eyewash is tepid:

"How is it possible? The judge who will be inquiring the case will not be answerable to my government. Where does the question of influence arise? Moreover, it is in the best interest of me and my government that truth and only truth should come out. I will be deposing before the Commission and answer each and every query."

How independent is the judiciary? How many judgements have ever been passed against ruling governments? Omar may not exert influence, and he may well be clean, but the judiciary will try and play the establishment game. We do know that bribery cuts across the board and is not only a political evil. 

I am afraid that the truth is, as always, relative. The truth here is a member if his party took money. He should have been slapped with a legal case, not a crime branch probe. 

As regards deposing before a Commission, L K Advani has been doing so before the Liberhans Commission for years now; Narendra Modi deposed. They answered queries. So?

"People have lot of faith in the courts. So let us not make a mockery of the faith of millions of people."

In Jammu and Kashmir or in La-la land?

Omar said that by summoning Yousuf he had only performed his duty to ensure that the vicious cycle of corruption was put to an end.

Really? We never heard about this cycle earlier from him. Has he pulled up corruption in the army, the police, at places of worship, in hospitals, at universities? Why Yousuf?

Seeking to put a stop to "trial-by-media", the Chief Minister said "it is unfortunate that certain section of media nowadays pronounce people guilty without even waiting for a judicial process to begin, forget about waiting for its end."

This is true. But he can call a press conference; he can appear on television. Why does he do so? Does the judicial process end? What about celebrity cases that are covered by the media and get fast-tracked by the judiciary precisely because they become eyeball grabbing? Certain sections of the media demonised 'stone pelters'. What does one say about that? 

Almost every TV channel has its favourites, and if you do not want the ball in your court, then also stay away from the game when it suits you. This applies to every politician, industrialist and celebrity. 

It is perturbing that the CM is holding a high moral ground about the exchange of money:

"Should I turn a blind eye to these allegations? I called him (Yousuf) and he agreed that he had taken money from the two others. All I wanted him to return the money. I guess that was not a crime. And I had told him and two others that the case will be probed by the Crime Branch in any case. Here I am handing over bribe giver as well as bribe taker to police. What is wrong in this?" 

If all he wanted was for Yousuf to return the money, then it would not have been such a complicated procedure. There are positions up for grabs without the exchange of funds. Why did Yousuf not deny it? Are those two so important that they can get an audience with the chief minister? 

And Abdullah, who has decried passing of judgement by the media, has this to say:

The Chief Minister said that no one had "touched" Yousuf at his residence and "I believe that no one touched him during the custody as well as the preliminary post mortem report was clear that there were no injury marks on him and he had died because of massive heart attack."

Now, now, where is the role of the judiciary that millions have faith in? What does a public pronouncement of "I believe" amount to? Why is he commenting on the post mortem report and whether Yousuf was "touched" or not? Is this not pre-judging a case when he has himself left it to the courts to bring out the truth?

As I said, the PDP will play politics. But it has earlier protested against other custodial deaths as well. However, it does not behove the CM to make churlish comments:

Omar dubbed PDP’s demand for his resignation to "empty vessels making lot of noise" and accused it of being an "obtrusive opposition rather than a healthy one."

"The allegations made by the party will be aptly replied by my lawyer as I have faith in the judicial system. In the past, some of the opposition leaders had to tender an apology after I sued them for defamation and I know for sure that this time also, history will repeat itself."

A healthy opposition, apparently, is a blind one. His attitude reeks if arrogance. They are demanding a probe into a custodial death and his resignation because he handed the man to the cops. Is this noise by empty vessels? We make such demands on ministers all the time because it is called accountability. Yousuf's family says he had no history of heart attack; Abdullah says it can happen. Of course, but again why is he not waiting for a judicial probe? 

He seems to be concerned only about defamation and how his lawyers will sue the opposition parties and get an apology. Fine. If the opposition has gone beyond decency and acused him of the worst and his lawyers prove that, does it take away from the seriousness of the case itself? 

We have a great martyr here. The man is honest and will take his own party man to task for accepting a bribe for something he was not even in a position to do. In fact, has anyone asked Abdullah what his equation with Yousuf was and whether he was in such a dandy position at all? Did Omar know the two bribe givers and where they got the funds from?

Of course, this is all for the judiciary's ears. Meanwhile, the CM can keep talking extra-judicially and be "sure" that he will get an apology. And all will be well with the washing machine...er...image. 

- - -

Published in Countercurrents

---

Updated October 8, about 5 pm)

How many interviews has Omar Abdullah given since his "faith in the judiciary" and "trial by media" comment?

Here is one such, with excerpts (read the report for his version of mimicry):

Omar said allegations against Syed Mohammed Yousuf were brought to his notice about two months ago but it slipped out of his mind to act on those allegations. "I am only human (and) with the entire pressure of handing a peaceful summer, the Amarnath Yatra, governance and a whole host of other things, it just slipped my mind,'' he told a TV channel.

Now, after listening to the guy who accused Yousuf, he says it is the opposition plot:

Omar hinted that Reshi could be working at PDP's behest. "Three independent and credible sources have told me about his contact with a high level PDP functionary." He also called Yousuf a "crook" and denied his close links to the Abdullahs. There was no evidence, he said, that Yousuf was roughed up. "He died 24 hours later. Look at the timeline. The stress killed him."

Of course.

"I tendered my resignation (over allegation of involvement in a sex scandal) and was called immature,'' he said. "I am not losing any sleep over this. I have a job to do and I will continue to do that." He said would not apologize for how he handled the issue and would do the same thing again under similar circumstance.

It is good he can sleep well, unlike many Kashmiris. And his job includes seeing to it that custodial deaths are prevented.

Right said Omar?

Omar Abdullah is trapped between the BJP and the Hurriyat. At any other time it would have been a wonderful place to be in, berated by two extremist groups. Unfortunately for him, their reasons for putting him on the mat are vastly different.

The chief minister has been quoted from Twitter as saying:

"If the J&K assembly had passed a resolution similar to the one in Tamil Nadu on Afzal Guru would the reaction have been as muted? I think not."

The death penalty for Rajiv Gandhi's killers has been delayed by state intervention. This is unusual.

Omar is right in that there are different standards. Interestingly, the muted reaction he was complaining about has agitated people and 'unmuted' them. The BJP is going hoarse with sudden concern for Rajiv Gandhi. (They are quiet over the acquittal of Haren Pandya's killers. Pandya was a BJP man who later had a fallout with Modi.)

The BJP uses the phrase "sovereignty of the nation" rather loosely. Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, unfortunate as it was, had its own dynamics that had to do with policy. The LTTE is not an Indian organisation, although it has its supporters. Such support results in huge electoral gains.

The BJP is worried about this aspect. After all, Priyanka Gandhi had met Nalini, one of her father's killers, in Vellore jail in 2008. The death verdict was given 11 years ago. Why did the BJP not put pressure to expedite it as they have done on a regular basis in the case of Afzal Guru, an Indian?

Omar Abdullah was pointing out the double standards, and one should see this as part of a thriving democracy that we are so chuffed about, with people out in the street.

However, the Hurriyat's Mirwaiz Omar Farooq has wondered why if he is so concerned about Afzal does he not resign. Again, we are faced with a missing the wood for the trees situation.

Omar Abdullah was in fact speaking as a political leader and expressing the helpless predicament of dealing with Kashmir. He chose the wrong forum to do so.

A few 'other' questions too need to be asked:

1. Would he raise the issue in the J&K assembly?

2. If so, would it mean he is doing so on humanitarian grounds or on a legal/factual basis?

3. If the latter, then would he risk providing possible loopholes?

4. How often do fake encounters figure in the assembly?

5. Does exposing political hypocrisy - I am assuming the muted reference was to politicians - enough?

This is a question for all parties. We do live in times when terrorists too have a vote bank, that is those who are not behind establishment-buffered terror.

Answers need to be sought in the right place, unless the 'people's movement' has seeped into the system's bones. In that case, stone pelters should be excused.

Sonia’s Boys Will Be Boys

Almost everyday, someone in this country is using khadi to wipe some part of their houses, some part of their person. I am quite certain they are not thinking about how they are insulting the Mahatma.


But it can happen:

Congress disapproved Union Minister Jairam Ramesh's controversial act of wiping his shoe with a garland of spun cotton given by party members while welcoming him at a public function in Rajasthan.

"In the life of a nation there are certain symbols and one should be more careful and sensitive about them," AICC General Secretary Janardhan Dwivedi said reacting to the development.

The cotton garlands were offered to Ramesh by Congress office-bearers Rameshwar Dudi and Rampyari Vishnoi at a function on Monday. When the minister was sitting on a chair at the dais, he took off the garlands and put them on a table. After some time, he took a garland and cleaned his shoe.

Reacting sharply, the state BJP criticised his act and demanded an apology saying, "The garland is a symbol of Gandhi's spinning wheel. It (the act) is an insult to Gandhi's khadi."

A few points:

• The BJP’s Gandhigiri we know about, so it is just adding to the political cacophony.

• The only insult is that the garland was offered to him as a gesture and he ought to have respected it, whether it was a garland of marigolds or of sandalwood. There is no special symbolism about khadi. It can and does clean shoes.

• People should be more concerned that this ‘humble’ fabric is sold at exorbitant rates by designer labels. In the life of a nation there is the common man, too.

• Having said this, I wonder what prompted Jairam Ramesh to become his own shoeshine boy on a public platform. Was he in fact being Gandhian and telling the party membes that you must clean your own dirt?

- - -

Omar Abdullah declares:

“A young man was shot dead in Sopore yesterday for no apparent fault of his. Where the hell are all the irate voices??? Bloody hypocrites.”

For how many years has there been insurgency in Kashmir? How many people have been killed, by both the armed forces as well as the militants? Why this sudden looking for “irate voices”? Does the chief minister of J&K think that civilian deaths do not matter if militants kill them?


I understand that he believes that the issue of such killings by the authorities are taken up by human rights organisations, and they are silent. No, they are not. There are records of such killings. But, it must be remembered that a terrorist is not running a government or representing the country or in charge of its security. That is the big difference. People expect the security forces to not kill civilians. His comment makes one wonder whether:

• He believes that all those killed by the army are at fault.

• The fact that there are irate voices against establishment-ordered killings means that it happens and there ought to be equal vehemence in opposing it.

This is not about scoring points about decibel levels.


As for being bloody hyprocrites, how about the fact that the Centre-appointed interlocutor in Kashmir, Dileep Padgaongkar, had gone on one of Ghulam Nabi Fai’s junket conferences, and our home minister says that as this was before he became the interlocutor, it is fine? If there is criticism of Fai, then why not have a uniform response?


Mr. Fai’s links have been made much of, so where are the irate voices about the interlocutor’s role? Where is the “bloody hypocrites” declamation?

- - -

Mani Shanker Aiyer has called the Congress a circus. Why?

"Those who have got their work done visit 10, Janpath (Congress President Sonia Gandhi's residence), while those with some hope of getting their work done visit 23, Willingdon Crescent (the residence of the Congress Chief's Political Secretary Ahmed Patel). Those who have lost all the hope and are dejected come to 24, Akbar Road (Congress' headquarters)".

I don’t think he has visited a circus in a long time. What he is describing is different phases of love. They can be encapsulated in a few phrases from a few songs, light and dark:

1. Porgee phaslee re phaslee
2. Mujhko thodi lift kara de
3. Koi hota jisko hum apna, hum apna keh lete yaaron…

Unless, of course, Mr. Aiyer meant the circus in the film Mera Naam Joker. In which case, it would be apt to address him:

kehta hai jokar saara zamaana

aadhi haqeeqat aadha fasaana

chashmaa uthaao, phir dekho yaaro

duniya nayi hai, chehra puraana

Bhool gaye kya apne din?

Chatting up the media = barking up the wrong tree

Hear, hear?

The media should be the last refuge of the Prime Minister of any country. I think our ministers are too vocal without saying anything – whether it is home minister P.Chidambaram whose bright idea it is for the PM to have these gup-shups, or the social networking guys who provide bird feed or the Digvijay Singh types who use the rattler to create a noise. Occasionally some sense comes out of it, but politics and leadership are not occasional sparks.

Manmohan Singh’s interaction with the media will be as scripted as his speeches. If anything, it will create fissures among different groups as to who gets to attend these special sessions. Five senior editors are being invited. The first meeting was today. His office is expected to release the transcripts.

This is as pathetic as Anna Hazare holding the government to ransom. And it is unfortunate both ways. One, this amounts to fed information. The editors may ask questions but one can be reasonably certain it won’t be open season. Dr. Singh will know what is being asked beforehand – and most senior media guys tend to err on the side of propriety when it comes to dealing with authority. Gone are the days of putting their heads on the chopping block. Now, it is more important to rub shoulders with the powerful, and even if it means making them accountable there is an element of “See, we have this much reach.”

Two, how many of the editors will carry the full transcript? What would the editing reveal if not their own pet positions? That would not be as bad as trying hard to give a balanced picture and misleading the reader/viewer by slyly pushing an agenda. Recall the famous breakfast meeting by Pervez Musharraf in Agra where editors spoke about the fluffy omelettes and his compliments on their clothes. They called it his PR coup.

(Break: Just come in. One of the PM's statements at the high-powered meet: "What surprises me is not that there are corrupt civil servants but that despite all the temptations, so many of our civil servants remain honest and lead frugal lives and this is the mainspring that we have to tap.")

Take any recent event and you can see which side the media house is on despite giving all sides.

Manmohan Singh is answerable to the nation not to the media. The job of the media is to carry news and express opinions and the two should be clearly demarcated. The PM owes them nothing. He owes the citizens an explanation. For that he needs to release a statement or come before the Doordarshan cameras. Maybe answer queries from the public.

Government transparency is not about discussing policy issues with editors. They are not in the government. And they are not even transparent themselves.

- - -

I can understand media pressure when one of their own is murdered. Initially, many did to want to comment on the killing of investigative editor J. Dey, remember? Let the cops do their job was their stance. Then the morchas took place. The ministers were pressurised. The cops had to do something quick.

Now they have rounded up seven people from the Chhota Rajan gang. Everyone knows that this could be the tip of the iceberg, but can the media run its own investigations? If so, then come clean. Don’t expect the government to deliver the goods and then run your own theories. Dey’s colleague ‘Akela’ had some leads. Have they come to any use?

And, more importantly, if he made that trip to Europe and met some underworld guy, then what exactly was going on? What about his proposed junket trip to Philippines that he was not too keen on? Are scribes being used to act as messengers and by whom?

Rather conveniently, the action has suddenly shifted to Chandni Chowk where the plan was apparently hatched. This, after the case was “cracked”. More obfuscation, but no real questions. And, yes, no motives.

(Here was my take on June 11: Who kills investigative reporters?)

- - -

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah is not making any promises. Nice. He left a public gathering when he was asked to make an announcement in Beerwah that it would be given separate district status from Budgam. He said there are procedures for these things and he cannot make false promises.

This is all good. But why did he leave the venue? He is the CM. It wasn’t like he was being asked for Kashmir to be separated from Jammu or Ladakh or even India…

11 votes for a Pandit: Kashmir's hope?

The winner's on the right, right?

Okay, let us celebrate. In the Jammu and Kashmir elections, Aasha Jee (don’t know what’s with the spelling in the papers) has won a panchayat poll in Wusan, in Baramulla district after defeating her lone rival Sarwa Begum by 11 votes. She is now the Sarpanch of the “Muslim-dominated village”.

Instead of discussing the problems in the village, everyone is on the religion and bonhomie trip. Her family did not ‘flee’, so perhaps a certain Mr. Jagmohan, the governor during the controversial period, might be interested in her statements:

“My victory should send a clear message to migrant Kashmiri Pandits living in exile in other parts of the country that there is no threat to their lives in Kashmir now.”

I would have been happier had she said there is less violence or there is no threat to any Kashmiri, not just Pandits. This sounds like one more totem, although no one is discussing the possibility of rigging this time. A relief. Her victory is being played up with threats to her life, contradicting what she is saying. Indeed, the separatists called for a boycott of polls, but they always do. But we seem to need martyrs all the time. She is asked if she wasn’t afraid.

What is the woman to do? She knows that as a village head she has to speak the language she hears being spoken in talk shows and by those standing behind lecterns at Lal Chowk. So she goes along:

“I am a firm believer in destiny. Life and death is in the hands of God and a person dies only once. If I die for truth and following the right path, I will have no regrets.”

What is the truth? Does anyone know it? It is needs and demands. If her life is under threat, then all those Muslims who voted for her are equally at risk. But that is not the issue. Will the panchayat have enough teeth to deal with day-to-day issues?

The high-standing comes from those standing high. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, speaking from his durbar – Twitter, of course – reportedly yanked out 140 characters from his perch quoting local residents who said:

“We didn't see whether she is a Muslim or non-Muslim. We gave her preference over Muslim candidates.”

Did he hear it right or is he quoting it right? If they did not see her faith, then why give preference to her for her faith? Weird.

His own take:

“Regardless of what the extremist elements of both sides want the world to believe, there is still hope for the Valley and Kashmiriyat.”

Sure. Get off that Smartphone. Eleven votes for a Pandit and a woman after all these years is no indication of hope or Kashmiriyat. Incidentally, when mention Kashmiriyat it amounts to a separate identity. This is what the separatists talk about.

Careless news

I don’t understand what the picture below has got to do with the content of the news item. Since it has no credit line, I am not sure whether Omar Abdullah is inspecting “the Indo-Pak border in the R S Pura sector”, as is mentioned in the Times of India, or bird-watching. 

Also, while in another report in TOI’s web edition, he does state that Pakistan should do its bit for peace, the Pakistani Rangers who were killed by the BSF were not anywhere near J&K. This happened in Fazilka town in Ferozepur district, which is a couple of hours’ drive from Chandigarh. The BSF guards the 553-km international border in Punjab.

As regards Pakistan refusing to accept the bodies, obviously it would. Consent would amount to culpability. So throwing evidence will not work.

What has Omar Abdullah got to do with this?


For a clear reference I am reproducing the news item and photograph as it is in the newspaper from the epaper. Ignorance, and such carelessness, is not always bliss:

Pak refuses to accept intruders’ bodies
J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah inspects the Indo-Pak border in the R S Pura sector on Sunday. Pakistan has refused to accept bodies of two alleged Pakistanis, who were shot dead by the BSF early on Friday when they tried to sneak into India, an official said. ‘We had informed the Pakistan Rangers and we were hopeful they would take back the bodies. But they refused and said the deceased were not Pakistanis,’ BSF deputy inspector general Panaj said. ‘We have enough proof to substantiate their identity but Pakistan does not want to admit the fact,’ he added

Omar, the BJP and flag-hoisting

Omar Abdullah has never been a particularly responsible man. He takes after his father. The guy who at one time supped and slurped with the NDA now has problems with the BJP wanting to hoist the national flag at Lal Chowk in Srinagar on Republic Day.

"What is the need for an individual to hoist the flag? If their aim is to set Kashmir afire, please tell them to stop. If there are repercussions, I will hold them personally responsible. They should not hold me responsible if there is a fallout of that in Kashmir. They will have to come and sort it out. They shall not hold me responsible.”

This is the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir talking. We may remind him that any individual is permitted to hoist the flag; they do so even in prisons. If he has a problem with an ‘individual’, then on what grounds is he talking about ‘personally’ holding anyone responsible? Is he saying he will hold a person responsible or that he will do so in his personal capacity? If it is the latter, then he has no business sitting in the chair he now occupies. What exactly does he mean that if there is a fallout they should come and sort it out? Why does he not just take off on vacation or something?

He wonders if their aim is to set the state on fire and this he believes is counterproductive to the peace that has apparently returned to the Valley. Just to jog his memory, the incidents of the past few months of “civil unrest” had nothing to do with flag-hoisting or any political party. It was under his administration that the protests took place.

Having said this, it must be mentioned that traditionally it is the ruling party that conducts the flag-hoisting ceremony at Lal Chowk. The possibility of a clash of egos, rather than any public skirmishes, is likely.

What is the BJP’s agenda? Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, said:

“BJP maintains that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India... We are going to carry the national flag not in one state but through several states...This is part of a campaign for national sovereignty and solidarity.”

Since the Rashtriya Ekta Yatra is to start on January 12, pass through several states and end in Srinagar on Republic Day, I have a few questions:

• How does carrying a flag ensure national sovereignty and will the BJP also flash its own saffron flag along the way? 

• Why could it not start in Kashmir and end in Kolkata, for the message would be the same, isn’t it? 

• Given the views in the Valley and the fact that the BJP feels so strongly about it being an integral part of India, what is it doing to make Kashmiri Pandits a part of this solidarity?

• Is it possible for Arun Jaitley and any other BJP/saffron party members to carry a message of peace, instead of this ‘yeh hamara hai’ ownership agenda?

At the end of it with Omar’s fumbling and the BJP’s chest-thumping, and the pre-emptive noises, the people may be forced to come out in the streets to give both of them a piece of their mind.

And Omar Abdullah, do not take peace as lightly as you take the paranoia about fire.

Shoo-shoe, Omar – 2nd episode

Omar Abdullah has decided that he is going to be a good boy and follow the spirit of Ramzan. Therefore, he has forgiven the suspended head constable Abdul Ahad Jan who threw a shoe at him, as discussed here, because this month “teaches us to be compassionate”.

After the incident, Jan was hailed as hero by the public. This must have made Omar realise that not only has he lost the goodwill of the people he might also lose a photo-op. A few questions for the chief minister and what appears to be his enthusiasm for Ramzan and compassion:

• This man was suspended – should he be given a job?
• It is said that his son was once arrested for some militant-type work – is there a way in which he can be cleared of this?
• The young people pelting stones – what compassion are you giving them?
• The security guys who are being targeted – what compassion for them?
• People are coming out in the streets because they have grievances – how would compassion translate into action for them?
• There is curfew and people have to do without essentials - where is the compassion for them?

I would also like to know what this compassion business has got to do with the work of the agencies responsible for dealing with criminal activities or disturbing the peace. Abdul Jan did that and was taken into custody. He is said to have a PDP pass. Will there be any investigation? If not, then does Omar believe that he is superior to the law? If he does, then on what grounds can he object to unlawful activities?

As if this grand gesture was not enough, his father Farooq Abdullah says that he “has joined an elite club of George Bush, P Chidambaram, Asif Ali Zardari and a few others with the reward of shoe. It is a wonderful thing”.

So, it is all about elitism. And look at the members he is enthused about. Besides, what is so wonderful about it? Is there no sense of shame? If Abdul Jan was expressing the feelings of the people, as seems to be evident from the outpouring of support he garnered, then it should be wake-up call for the Abdullah club. If he was mentally unstable, then he might have thrown a shoe at anyone, maybe a karakul lamb, so there’s no need to get all that excited.

It only reveals the lengths to which people will go. I am also willing to see a conspiracy theory here. The shoe was too well-polished for a suspended cop. And don’t tell me Mehbooba Mufti provides shoe-shine boys for this kind of jihad.

Shoo-shoe, Omar

I don’t know about you, but I am really tired of the intellectual analyses these shoe-throwing incidents have thrown up. The manner in which the media has been tracing the history and dissecting the cases, one would think that every shoe is a dissenter.

The latest target is Jammu and Kashmir chief minister, Omar Abdullah. I love the picture; it almost looks like the photographer and the assailant had co-ordinated their movements. Now, the Times of India carried this caption: ‘SHOOED’ BUT UNFAZED’ as the footwear ‘sailed over’ the precious head. How was it possible for the CM to get fazed? Does he have eyes above his head or, more appropriately, over his cap?

Or was the reference to his reaction after the incident when the shoe fell ahead of him? An interesting possibility that it sails over his head and falls ahead of him when it was thrown from the third row in front of the dais and might have fallen at the side. Perhaps the direction of the wind had something to do with it.

However, the TOI report is very balanced; so balanced that while it says the man who lost his shoe is a head constable with the J&K police on one page, it mentions later that Abdul Ahad Jan was dismissed and in fact served a sentence and was out on bail. Should not the media – not just this newspaper – have checked on the current status of the man?

No. For it would not help in the slant of the report:

The fact that he did so during I-Day celebrations makes it an even more damaging dereliction of duty.

Had he done it on any other day it would have been less damaging and less of a dereliction of duty? In fact, he is exercising his independence on the given day.

Mind you, Omar has been demanding that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act be revoked so that the J&K police can tackle the troubles in the state directly.

Ah, how wicked. While seeming to take up the cause of Omar, the paper is snidely trying to say that you get the army out of the way and look at what can happen. That is the reason the other story about the cop was pushed to the back pages.

Here is the stuff about him…

• He was mentally unstable
• He looked uneasy from the beginning
• He had been charged with extortion
• He had been sent by a political party and used the politician’s entry pass. (Names please.)
• He was shouting pro-azadi (freedom) slogans

Guess what? Omar also mentioned azadi:

Earlier, in his address, Omar said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was ready to consider autonomy for the state as a solution. “But we would like to discuss other options like self-rule and azadi too.”

Back to the shoes, it did not deter our brave CM. He went on to unfurl the flag. The way this is emphasised one would imagine he was grievously injured. Of course, courageous man that he is he said:

“I’ve no regret that somebody threw a shoe and raised azadi slogans. I think it’s a better way of protesting if a shoe is tossed instead of a stone.’’

Bloody hell. Those who are pelting stones are protesting against policies or lack of them, they are protesting for their rights, they have grievances against the social order and against being pushed into a corner, they are being targeted by militants and security forces and used by political parties. Before Omar Abdullah aims at getting martyrdom from those brown shoes, he had better understand that this individually-expressed ire against him is not the same as the movement he will ditch the moment he gets some sops from the Centre for himself. Isn’t that why his papa, Farooq Abdullah, stopped him from resigning? If they want to run the state as a Mom & Pop store, then they'd better just stick to candies.

Don’t speak for the people’s hunger and anger of years.

If it’s Friday it must be Kashmir

The separatists in the Valley have their own calendar now marked with specific days of protest, we are told. Sunday is a working day.

Is this to be seen as an Islamic agenda, as reports have made it out to be? Kashmir University vice-chancellor Prof Riyaz Punjabi has a different take:

"Teachers need to gear up to complete the syllabus so that all examinations are held on time. So there shall be no holidays in the varsity henceforth, including Sundays, gazetted holidays, summer and winter vacations. It was also decided that the varsity shall operate from 9.30 am to 6 pm with immediate effect."

This is in response to the strikes that are being called almost every other day. Nowhere does it state that the Sunday holiday is being substituted. However, newspapers have conjectured:

Central agencies feel that the change may lead to Sunday being replaced by Friday as the weekly holiday, as has been the norm in Islamic countries.

Besides the ‘feeling’ of central agencies, there is the technical aspect of managing major infrastructural changes. Incidentally, Pakistan, of who Geelani is considered a stooge, does not enforce a Friday holiday. Instead of seeing the role of the universities to make up for lost time, we have the media indulging in such idle thinking. Even if it is true, it won’t alter the face of insurgency movement. The separatists have often used the Friday namaaz as the best means to address the congregation on political affairs.

If, indeed, this move is being Islamised, then what about the call for Ramzan ceasefire by the establishment in the past where it was assumed that a month of non-firing will cool off the militants, although it was promoted on respect for religion grounds? Why was the government playing to the gallery?

This time round, Omar Abdullah’s political advisor, Davinder Singh Rana, is trying to show muscle:

"We have already instructed the police to enforce law and order besides making people feel free to spend their life as per their choice.”

Yes, long time no see. So, if some people want to make Thursday evenings their chill-out time during curfew, it is like okey-dokey and those who prefer Saturday night fever in the heat of firing then that’s their choice.

Clearly, democracy means choosing the right day to stay at home.

Kashmir's Inner Demons

The People’s War
Kashmir's Inner Demons
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, July 9-11

Talking in terms of when the situation normalises in Kashmir amounts to living in a fool’s paradise. That the person saying so happens to be the chief minister of the state reveals the paucity of any real incentive to find solutions. Situations do not normalise as a matter of course when people in a place have been fighting a battle within.

A nine-year-old’s death during this tense-filled month clearly shows that no one is in control. While the home minister, P. Chidambaram, has insinuated the role of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, it is akin to playing to the gallery. After a while, it stops being a popcorn moment of watching the skirmishes in celluloid fashion. The government intercepted a conversation between hardliner separatists discussing the possibility of causing causalities in a procession on the outskirts of Srinagar. One office-bearer said, “At least 15 people should be martyred today." This was a 20,000 crowd. Nothing happened because the cops dispersed the mob with a cane charge. So much for the hardline terrorist plan and the sleuthing by the intelligence agencies.

The real dramatis personae this time are within the state. There is the ruling party leader Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti of the People’s Democratic Party and the separatist Hurriyat’s Mirwaiz Omar Farooq.

The Centre plays a guest appearance.

Abdullah states that the Kashmir crisis is not because of bad governance. It is most certainly not the only reason if he means during his tenure, but it has been bad governance all along. His silence for the most part has not helped and when he does speak it exposes his lack of political will and sensitivity. Commenting on the loss of civilian lives, he said, “Being a father, I can feel the pain of those parents who have lost their child, I appeal all of the parents to counsel their children to not go outside their homes during the violence or in curfew and don’t indulge themselves in anti-national activities.”

Is good governance all about imprisoning children inside their homes? Isn’t good governance about trying to put a stop to such violence that is at least within manageable limits? Are the young people who are coming out in the streets and pelting stones indulging in anti-national activities? Has he not seen that the police have begun carrying little bricks too? This is not the voice of terrorism but of frustration.

Worse, there have been attacks on media persons. The Press Guild of Kashmir issued a statement saying, “Not allowing media persons to move and cover the situation tantamount to banning the media and that is what the state government has done indirectly.”

Abdullah can therefore reach his own conclusions because he is indulging in suppression of information. He alludes to the youth being used by vested interests. Why does he not name them? Everyone is a vested interest in Kashmir because each life is in danger and each human being there is living on the razor’s edge for two decades.

It is naïve of him to suggest that vested interests and anti-national forces are working together. Most local separatist groups can be broadly referred to as anti-Centre, not anti-national. Several issues need to be resolved, and that they are not is the problem of the government of India and not the extremist factions. What kind of a society is it where the ruling party leader says that normalcy will return if people obey the curfew? The people of the state are not sheep that they can be herded together to obey such diktats. Besides, are curfews the answer to the problems in the Valley? Will they assuage the disaffection of the people, bring back economic prosperity, prevent the influx of outside forces, and end the demands of separatist groups?

In what appears to be a case of ‘he has lost it’, at a press conference Abdullah appealed to senior citizens and religious preachers to spread the message of peace and help to bring normalcy in the affected areas.

Senior citizens have lost their children in the years of insurgency in the state and the peace process is not about homilies. As for religious preachers, he is transforming a political issue into a seminary dialogue and buffering the image of it as a jihad, which is playing into the hands of certain elements that have been pushing this agenda to justify their own religious idea.

He then went on a completely different track by holding out for the actions of the young people by bringing in the heavy-handedness of security forces that beat up locals and this could as a consequence be seen as retaliation. Excesses by security personnel are not unknown and have been going on for quite some time. This is not reprisal against that. He is using a simplistic yardstick because this is what he is comfortable with.

Undertrial prisoners and civilian casualties have another dimension. This time the youth movement seems to have been activated at the ground level, in many ways outside the purview of separatist or establishment movements. They are in effect protesting against bad governance, whether or not he wishes to admit it.

Mehbooba Mufti has blamed both the central and state governments. "Law and order is directly controlled by New Delhi. Now the governor has passed an order asking all departments to submit a monthly progress report on development activities to him directly. So, what does Abdullah do?” It is a relevant query. The elected representative has little power and therefore cannot hold forth on governance. However, surprisingly, Mirwaiz Omar Farooq believes, “She is a politician, so she blames the state government. But the current movement has nothing to do with governance issues. It is totally related to the cause of the Kashmiris and the political solution of the larger Kashmir issue."

This is word-play. The Hurriyat leaders are politicians too, although not elected by the people. The larger Kashmir issue and the cause of the Kashmiris cannot exist in a vacuum and are related to governance. If they were not, why would the leaders rant against the Centre’s apathy or the State’s lack of initiative? Security is a matter of governance. Autonomy and other demands may be the macro issues, but their demand has sprung forth from the attitude of the Centre, the infiltration from across the border and infighting amongst the various militant outfits.

If a basic aspect like governance is resulting in such convergent views then there is little hope of there being any whiff of the real thing. If Mirwaiz says, "The situation is quite violent. The administration and New Delhi is trying to showcase it as a few cases of sporadic violence. But that's certainly not the case. New Delhi has always tried to manage the Kashmir issue; never tried to find a solution", then he must not speak with a forked tongue and absolve the Centre and the state only to take to task other political parties. He must not forget that during every elections heads roll and almost never of the political leaders who find different portfolios in different parties. It is the person going out to vote who has his head on the chopping block.

It does not need to be reiterated that the Kashmir issue is a complex one, but when the armed forces fight civilians, it is also not a matter of separatist aspirations. It is about a badly-administered state that is not providing basic infrastructure and opportunities to the citizens.

The youth pelting stones represent themselves. It is precious irony that in a state that wants to fight for freedom, the freedom of individuals to express their own anger is being manipulated by various power centres – of the government and the separatists.

The larger Kashmir issue is this – peace for the people by the people and of the people.