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

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.

Who is asking the Sikhs in Kashmir to convert?

by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, August 20

Has anyone asked this crucial question? Before it can be voiced in cogent terms, the government ’swings into action’ to protect the Sikhs. Let us not forget that the Congress party had done no such protecting of the community in the capital city and the rest of the country in 1984. Those who were indicted and held responsible for the carnage managed to hold important portfolios and stay in power for years. People are still waiting for compensation.

Therefore, the central government’s prompt action – and it is rather surprising that not only does it come from the home minister, but also the finance minister and the external affairs minister – reveals that it has found a new ruse to deal with the people’s movement in the Valley.

Unlike the Kashmiri Pandits who were systematically made to ‘flee’ by vested interests, the Sikhs are not an extremely wealthy or powerful group and decided to stay back. As the largest minority group comprising 60,000 people, they faced problems just as the other locals did. Now there is news that they have received letters asking them to join the protest or convert to Islam. Some of these letters state: “When you are enjoying the joys here, why can’t you share the grief and sorrow of Kashmiris as well? We know you are afraid of bullets. Hold protests inside gurudwaras or leave Kashmir.’’

In these notes there is no mention of conversion. There is a call for joining forces and fighting in their own religious places. The coordinator of the All Party Sikh Coordination Committee (ASCC), Jagmohan Singh Raina, said, “Our community members have received unsigned letters at various places. Some letters have asked Sikhs to embrace Islam.’’

He said his people would not leave and much rather fight the “evil designs’’. It must be noted that these are unsigned letters. Whose evil designs are these? If members of the community do decide to convert, will it not alert the authorities? Will their converting to Islam not become an even greater hindrance to the civilian war taking place?

Why did Raina choose to appeal to separatist organisations like the JKLF, the Hurriyat and rather incongruously the PoK-based United Jihad Council to ensure peace and amity? Why did he and his organisation not address the issue to the chief minister Omar Abdullah?

The issue reached Parliament and, as reports say, the government “held out an assurance that Sikhs had nothing to fear in Kashmir in the wake of reported threats to the minority community from militants to convert to Islam or leave the Valley”. There is no mention of the letters that asked them to join the protest movement. The NDA members, always on the lookout for such ‘communal’ concerns, had to be placated; Chidambaram told them, “nobody will be allowed to harm the Sikh community”.

Indeed, the community ought to be protected but this verbal heroism is senseless when the local population is being harmed everyday. Has there been such immediate sympathy expressed for the ongoing war and killings of civilians and security personnel? A shoe thrown at Omar Abdullah gets more mileage than the street protests.

Pranab Mukherjee became magnanimous: "Not only Muslims of Kashmir but the whole of India would rise as one to stand by the Sikh community.” When was the last time the whole of India stood as one to stand by a community, and how could it when the establishment orchestrates such harm?

Has anybody informed the whole of India about where those letters have come from? Why did the Sikh representative in Kashmir talk to the militant groups? Why was the PoK organisation informed? Assuming these threats are coming from the Pakistani side, why would they be interested in “peace and amity”? It just does not sound right.

While Syed Ali Shah Geelani has called these letters fake and had on an earlier occasion dramatically stated that the Sikhs could not be forced to join the protests and harming them would be like inflicting a wound on his body, it conveys the impression that his body has a great deal of importance. And if the JKLF and the Hurriyat do have a say in every such matter, then it begs the query as to what is the status of an elected government in the state?

It is a known fact that when militant groups send out threats, they like to flash their credentials. Since this is an upsurge from the ground level, it would be presumed that the locals are sending those letters. This is damaging to them as well as to what they have held important all along – the coexistence with minorities. This is reminiscent of the planted fliers posted on walls during the exodus of Pandits.

This time both the central and state governments do not know how to deal with the uprising in the Valley. Omar Abdullah can only give assurances when he knows well that there is nothing he can do because there is nothing he has done to salvage the situation. The separatist organisations are also riding on the wave rather than taking responsibility for it.

Instead of assurances in Parliament and smart talk, the government should find out where the mischief is taking place and the origin of those letters. The Sikhs who have received them should file FIRs in the police station. That will be the first step towards getting the government involved rather than the government just standing from afar and issuing homilies.

There is far more here then appears evident and the shoe could point in any direction. It’s time for the establishment to talk on its feet.

Geelani saab, keep your Black Day to yourself

The Hurriyat’s Syed Ali Shah Geelani is right in refusing one more dialogue with home minister P. Chidambaram. This is not the time for it. But he is mucking up the case by asking the people in the state to observe August 15 as a "black day" and Pakistan's foundation day as "a day of solidarity" on August 14.

Not only does it go against his own statement about self-determination – and the reality – that "Pandit Nehru promised Kashmiris the chance to decide their fate in 1948, but never fulfilled the promise", it also demeans the current crisis in Kashmir.

The Kashmir issue has escalated beyond a border dispute. All we are hearing are pathetic noises from almost everyone and long feature articles discussing ‘housewives’ coming out in the street, revealing chauvinism and a lack of understanding of insurgency. We won’t even go into the sad attempts at religious history being touted out that are not only invalid but also factually incorrect.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has joined forces against a dialogue, but he should most certainly not agree to be a part of this Black day and Solidarity Day tamasha. He at least seems to have his ideas verbatim, even if he might himself create hurdles to realising them later:

The 37-year-old Mirwaiz said he had proposed specific measures like demilitarisation, revocation of repressive laws and release of political prisoners to build trust to take the dialogue process forward and provide much-needed relief to the people. "But, unfortunately, these demands were not heeded," he said.

Meanwhile, Geelani is acting cute when he met a delegation of Kashmiri Pandits. According to Srinagar-based Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti leader Sanjay Tickoo:

"Geelani became emotional and told us that we're a part of Kashmir and our safety is the majority's community's primary duty. Geelani told us that if anything happens to us, it would be like a wound inflicted on his body.”

Again, this is not the time. The kids coming out in the streets are not Kashmiri Pandits. Their concerns are different. He is sending out so many different signals. I think he should himself offer to take house arrest.

- - -

The other case of getting all cute is our Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao. She has said that India understands Pakistan best. It is such a lover-like comment that it was a dampener to know that in her interview to IBNlive all she was referring to was the Wikileaks and we knew it before it all came out. These darned foreigners. Should we not at least patent our knowledge, since we don’t seem to be acting upon it?

All it takes is a temple?

One more act that will be seen as a great gesture.

A Hindu temple left in ruin in a central Srinagar locality but preserved by local Muslims in the absence of anyone to look after it has been formally handed over to a community group of Kashmiri pandits.

A statement issued by the Kashmir Pandit Sangarash Samiti (KPSS here said, "We at Kashmir Pandit Sangarash Samiti feel honoured by the stand taken by the local Muslims to save the temple. This clearly indicates that due to the few unscrupulous elements the whole community or society gets involved."

Who did they save it from? Terrorists? Others from the majority Muslim community? If it was left in ruin, why did the Muslims preserve it? Did they also preserve homes of the pandits? If they did, why is that not highlighted? And if they did not, then what is so important about the temple? I ask this because it is said that with assurances from the local mosque management committee some people have relocated “to the area to take the control of the temple”.

Who is this mosque committee and is it running the state? Who has given it the right to decide whether it can keep anything and anyone safe? What if it fails to do so? Will the strong pandit lobby again start on ‘Kashmiris and their Pakistani affiliation’? Does it take one temple to bridge a divide that was cleverly manipulated by politicians?

And is this organisation (KPSS) the representative of all Kashmiri pandits that it can ‘take over’ the temple? What if other groups want a share of the godly pie? What if they have a different opinion? Why is it emphaised in the report that the Muslims chose a Friday to hand over the temple? Because, it is an important holy day and there would be peole gathered for prayers and they wanted mileage. Simple.

It is all about garnering mileage. One pandit spokesperson even said:

“This will be known as the best example of the traditional bonds between the two communities have not fallen apart completely and there is hope and chance revive it completely provided.”

Is such a gesture evidence of a traditional bond? Do the pandits forget that many of their homes were in fact preserved, just as many were destroyed, along with those of the others? Do they forget that they got a not-too-bad deal from the respective governments? Do they forget that the Panun Kashmir group was separatist in nature? The bonds ought to be deeper than this exchange of temples and mosques when people are being killed everyday.

What has to be revived is trust and that won’t come with some fellows from either side playing footsie with various establishment types. The local population is a helpless witness in most cases. Therefore, I’d like to know who is manipulating this from behind closed doors.