-Arundhati Roy.

It can be difficult to read fiction during the autumn of an election year. In 2004, the last time the election was the most important in American history, fiction sales fell drastically in at least one major Seattle bookstore as sales of political books soared. It’s hard to entertain flights of fancy when images of neocon-inspired apocalyptic death are dancing in your head. But only reading books about the election between now and November is a surefire way to wind up in the booby hatch. The solution, then, must be to read fiction about politics.

Of the newer presidential fiction books, he recommends "American Wife" by Curtis Sittenfeld-- with its pseudo Laura Bush character. If anyone can second that emotion-- or suggest something else-- please let me know.  I recently tried to start Arundhati Roy's "The God of Small Things," but just couldn't do it. Help! Only 29 more days.

Does happiness in a dream count?

Ammu did not answer.  She knew she was happy.   In her dream.  And she counted that.

I try to think of occasions which I wish I would stay in my dreams.  But my dreams are always sad, unfulfilled.   When I grieved for the old woman who watched me grow up - and whose funeral I missed - she began to visit me in my dreamland.   Everything seemed normal - we talked, we had tea; but somehow, I knew she was gone, and sadness began to flood in.

It is the same with the snatches of childhood, with long lost friends,  with my respected teachers, with things I once treasured.  They crept back into my dreams and reminded me what I have lost.

But sadness in my dream state doesn't affect the waking mind.  While my dreams hinted me of my past losses, upon waking up, my consciousness always tells me to appreciate the presence, to treasure every moment of life, to live it in full.  That's the true happiness that really counts.

*********

Speaking of loss and sadness, I wept after finished reading The Book Thief by Markus Zusak today.

I will write more about the book later, but I am again touched by the power of literature.  Words can bring us into a world beyond our knowledge, help us to differentiate between kindness and cruelty, to instill goodness within ourselves.

My salute to all writers who bring us good reads and help us to understand what is humanity.

**********

I started this blog with the aim of making an account of the books I read and the films I watch, and nothing else - I didn't think I would reveal my feelings and personal life here, but it seems that I have broken my rules.  This post of random thoughts is an obvious example.  Often, when I read other bloggers' account of their lives and emotions, my immediate question is: Are they too afraid to open up to people around them, that they have to express themselves in written words to strangers in the cyber space?  Or is it simply because, there isn't someone they can speak to?  Now it seems I have to direct these questions to myself.

There are a couple of films I watched recently and want to write about.  Finding time is always a problem.  After two lengthy posts on Little Hut of Leaping Fishes, I resorted to keep my future reviews short and precise.  I have also decided not to have another post on the book about the women characters.  For this, you can read the analysis by Susan Whelan, which I came across recently: http://asian-literature.suite101.com/article.cfm/role_of_women_in_little_hut_of_leaping_fishes

Bei Droppingknowledge.org stellt sie die Frage: "What kind of resistance is effective and acceptible to us?"

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2Ok6apsHlg

On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles.
On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."

To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head," he said.

According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody's guess.

It is unlikely that British and American troops fighting in Iraq are aware that their governments supported Saddam Hussein both politically and financially through his worst excesses.

But why should poor AJ and his fellow soldiers be burdened with these details? It does not matter any more, does it? Hundreds of thousands of men, tanks, ships, choppers, bombs, ammunition, gas masks, high-protein food, whole aircrafts ferrying toilet paper, insect repellent, vitamins and bottled mineral water, are on the move. The phenomenal logistics of Operation Iraqi Freedom make it a universe unto itself. It doesn't need to justify its existence any more. It exists. It is.

President George W Bush, commander in chief of the US army, navy, airforce and marines has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated." (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the supreme commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war. And what a war it is.

After using the "good offices" of UN diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivalled in history, the "Allies"/"Coalition of the Willing"(better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) - sent in an invading army!

Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It's more like Operation Let's Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees.

So far the Iraqi army, with its hungry, ill-equipped soldiers, its old guns and ageing tanks, has somehow managed to temporarily confound and occasionally even outmanoeuvre the "Allies". Faced with the richest, best-equipped, most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen, Iraq has shown spectacular courage and has even managed to put up what actually amounts to a defence. A defence which the Bush/Blair Pair have immediately denounced as deceitful and cowardly. (But then deceit is an old tradition with us natives. When we are invaded/ colonised/occupied and stripped of all dignity, we turn to guile and opportunism.)

Even allowing for the fact that Iraq and the "Allies" are at war, the extent to which the "Allies" and their media cohorts are prepared to go is astounding to the point of being counterproductive to their own objectives.

When Saddam Hussein appeared on national TV to address the Iraqi people after the failure of the most elaborate assassination attempt in history - "Operation Decapitation" - we had Geoff Hoon, the British defence secretary, deriding him for not having the courage to stand up and be killed, calling him a coward who hides in trenches. We then had a flurry of Coalition speculation - Was it really Saddam, was it his double? Or was it Osama with a shave? Was it pre-recorded? Was it a speech? Was it black magic? Will it turn into a pumpkin if we really, really want it to?

After dropping not hundreds, but thousands of bombs on Baghdad, when a marketplace was mistakenly blown up and civilians killed - a US army spokesman implied that the Iraqis were blowing themselves up! "They're using very old stock. Their missiles go up and come down."

If so, may we ask how this squares with the accusation that the Iraqi regime is a paid-up member of the Axis of Evil and a threat to world peace?

When the Arab TV station al-Jazeera shows civilian casualties it's denounced as "emotive" Arab propaganda aimed at orchestrating hostility towards the "Allies", as though Iraqis are dying only in order to make the "Allies" look bad. Even French television has come in for some stick for similar reasons. But the awed, breathless footage of aircraft carriers, stealth bombers and cruise missiles arcing across the desert sky on American and British TV is described as the "terrible beauty" of war.

When invading American soldiers (from the army "that's only here to help") are taken prisoner and shown on Iraqi TV, George Bush says it violates the Geneva convention and "exposes the evil at the heart of the regime". But it is entirely acceptable for US television stations to show the hundreds of prisoners being held by the US government in Guantanamo Bay, kneeling on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs, blinded with opaque goggles and with earphones clamped on their ears, to ensure complete visual and aural deprivation. When questioned about the treatment of these prisoners, US Government officials don't deny that they're being being ill-treated. They deny that they're "prisoners of war"! They call them "unlawful combatants", implying that their ill-treatment is legitimate! (So what's the party line on the massacre of prisoners in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan? Forgive and forget? And what of the prisoner tortured to death by the special forces at the Bagram airforce base? Doctors have formally called it homicide.)

When the "Allies" bombed the Iraqi television station (also, incidentally, a contravention of the Geneva convention), there was vulgar jubilation in the American media. In fact Fox TV had been lobbying for the attack for a while. It was seen as a righteous blow against Arab propaganda. But mainstream American and British TV continue to advertise themselves as "balanced" when their propaganda has achieved hallucinatory levels.

Why should propaganda be the exclusive preserve of the western media? Just because they do it better? Western journalists "embedded" with troops are given the status of heroes reporting from the frontlines of war. Non-"embedded" journalists (such as the BBC's Rageh Omaar, reporting from besieged and bombed Baghdad, witnessing, and clearly affected by the sight of bodies of burned children and wounded people) are undermined even before they begin their reportage: "We have to tell you that he is being monitored by the Iraqi authorities."

Increasingly, on British and American TV, Iraqi soldiers are being referred to as "militia" (ie: rabble). One BBC correspondent portentously referred to them as "quasi-terrorists". Iraqi defence is "resistance" or worse still, "pockets of resistance", Iraqi military strategy is deceit. (The US government bugging the phone lines of UN security council delegates, reported by the Observer, is hard-headed pragmatism.) Clearly for the "Allies", the only morally acceptable strategy the Iraqi army can pursue is to march out into the desert and be bombed by B-52s or be mowed down by machine-gun fire. Anything short of that is cheating.

And now we have the siege of Basra. About a million and a half people, 40 per cent of them children. Without clean water, and with very little food. We're still waiting for the legendary Shia "uprising", for the happy hordes to stream out of the city and rain roses and hosannahs on the "liberating" army. Where are the hordes? Don't they know that television productions work to tight schedules? (It may well be that if Saddam's regime falls there will be dancing on the streets of Basra. But then, if the Bush regime were to fall, there would be dancing on the streets the world over.)

After days of enforcing hunger and thirst on the citizens of Basra, the "Allies" have brought in a few trucks of food and water and positioned them tantalisingly on the outskirts of the city. Desperate people flock to the trucks and fight each other for food. (The water we hear, is being sold. To revitalise the dying economy, you understand.) On top of the trucks, desperate photographers fought each other to get pictures of desperate people fighting each other for food. Those pictures will go out through photo agencies to newspapers and glossy magazines that pay extremely well. Their message: The messiahs are at hand, distributing fishes and loaves.

As of July last year the delivery of $5.4bn worth of supplies to Iraq was blocked by the Bush/Blair Pair. It didn't really make the news. But now under the loving caress of live TV, 450 tonnes of humanitarian aid - a minuscule fraction of what's actually needed (call it a script prop) - arrived on a British ship, the "Sir Galahad". Its arrival in the port of Umm Qasr merited a whole day of live TV broadcasts. Barf bag, anyone?

Nick Guttmann, head of emergencies for Christian Aid, writing for the Independent on Sunday said that it would take 32 Sir Galahad's a day to match the amount of food Iraq was receiving before the bombing began.

We oughtn't to be surprised though. It's old tactics. They've been at it for years. Consider this moderate proposal by John McNaughton from the Pentagon Papers, published during the Vietnam war: "Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China or the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however - if handled right - might ... offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided - which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'."

Times haven't changed very much. The technique has evolved into a doctrine. It's called "Winning Hearts and Minds".

So, here's the moral maths as it stands: 200,000 Iraqis estimated to have been killed in the first Gulf war. Hundreds of thousands dead because of the economic sanctions. (At least that lot has been saved from Saddam Hussein.) More being killed every day. Tens of thousands of US soldiers who fought the 1991 war officially declared "disabled" by a disease called the Gulf war syndrome, believed in part to be caused by exposure to depleted uranium. It hasn't stopped the "Allies" from continuing to use depleted uranium.

And now this talk of bringing the UN back into the picture. But that old UN girl - it turns out that she just ain't what she was cracked up to be. She's been demoted (although she retains her high salary). Now she's the world's janitor. She's the Philippino cleaning lady, the Indian jamadarni, the postal bride from Thailand, the Mexican household help, the Jamaican au pair. She's employed to clean other peoples' shit. She's used and abused at will.

Despite Blair's earnest submissions, and all his fawning, Bush has made it clear that the UN will play no independent part in the administration of postwar Iraq. The US will decide who gets those juicy "reconstruction" contracts. But Bush has appealed to the international community not to "politicise" the issue of humanitarian aid. On the March 28, after Bush called for the immediate resumption of the UN's oil for food programme, the UN security council voted unanimously for the resolution. This means that everybody agrees that Iraqi money (from the sale of Iraqi oil) should be used to feed Iraqi people who are starving because of US led sanctions and the illegal US-led war.

Contracts for the "reconstruction" of Iraq we're told, in discussions on the business news, could jump-start the world economy. It's funny how the interests of American corporations are so often, so successfully and so deliberately confused with the interests of the world economy. While the American people will end up paying for the war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and corporations involved in "reconstruction" work will make direct gains from the war. Many of them are old friends and former employers of the Bush/ Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal. Bush has already asked Congress for $75bn. Contracts for "re-construction" are already being negotiated. The news doesn't hit the stands because much of the US corporate media is owned and managed by the same interests.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tony Blair assures us is about returning Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people. That is, returning Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people via corporate multinationals. Like Shell, like Chevron, like Halliburton. Or are we missing the plot here? Perhaps Halliburton is actually an Iraqi company? Perhaps US vice-president Dick Cheney (who is a former director of Halliburton) is a closet Iraqi?

As the rift between Europe and America deepens, there are signs that the world could be entering a new era of economic boycotts. CNN reported that Americans are emptying French wine into gutters, chanting, "We don't want your stinking wine." We've heard about the re-baptism of French fries. Freedom fries they're called now. There's news trickling in about Americans boycotting German goods. The thing is that if the fallout of the war takes this turn, it is the US who will suffer the most. Its homeland may be defended by border patrols and nuclear weapons, but its economy is strung out across the globe. Its economic outposts are exposed and vulnerable to attack in every direction. Already the internet is buzzing with elaborate lists of American and British government products and companies that should be boycotted. Apart from the usual targets, Coke, Pepsi and McDonald's - government agencies such as USAID, the British department for international development, British and American banks, Arthur Anderson, Merrill Lynch, American Express, corporations such as Bechtel, General Electric, and companies such as Reebok, Nike and Gap - could find themselves under siege. These lists are being honed and re fined by activists across the world. They could become a practical guide that directs and channels the amorphous, but growing fury in the world. Suddenly, the "inevitability" of the project of corporate globalisation is beginning to seem more than a little evitable.

It's become clear that the war against terror is not really about terror, and the war on Iraq not only about oil. It's about a superpower's self-destructive impulse towards supremacy, stranglehold, global hegemony. The argument is being made that the people of Argentina and Iraq have both been decimated by the same process. Only the weapons used against them differ: In one case it's an IMF chequebook. In the other, cruise missiles.

Finally, there's the matter of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. (Oops, nearly forgot about those!)

In the fog of war - one thing's for sure - if Saddam 's regime indeed has weapons of mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree of responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme provocation. Under similar circumstances, (say if Iraqi troops were bombing New York and laying siege to Washington DC) could we expect the same of the Bush regime? Would it keep its thousands of nuclear warheads in their wrapping paper? What about its chemical and biological weapons? Its stocks of anthrax, smallpox and nerve gas? Would it?

Excuse me while I laugh.

In the fog of war we're forced to speculate: Either Saddam is an extremely responsible tyrant. Or - he simply does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Either way, regardless of what happens next, Iraq comes out of the argument smelling sweeter than the US government.

So here's Iraq - rogue state, grave threat to world peace, paid-up member of the Axis of Evil. Here's Iraq, invaded, bombed, besieged, bullied, its sovereignty shat upon, its children killed by cancers, its people blown up on the streets. And here's all of us watching. CNN-BBC, BBC-CNN late into the night. Here's all of us, enduring the horror of the war, enduring the horror of the propaganda and enduring the slaughter of language as we know and understand it. Freedom now means mass murder (or, in the US, fried potatoes). When someone says "humanitarian aid" we automatically go looking for induced starvation. "Embedded" I have to admit, is a great find. It's what it sounds like. And what about "arsenal of tactics?" Nice!

In most parts of the world, the invasion of Iraq is being seen as a racist war. The real danger of a racist war unleashed by racist regimes is that it engenders racism in everybody - perpetrators, victims, spectators. It sets the parameters for the debate, it lays out a grid for a particular way of thinking. There is a tidal wave of hatred for the US rising from the ancient heart of the world. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, Australia. I encounter it every day. Sometimes it comes from the most unlikely sources. Bankers, businessmen, yuppie students, and they bring to it all the crassness of their conservative, illiberal politics. That absurd inability to separate governments from people: America is a nation of morons, a nation of murderers, they say, (with the same carelessness with which they say, "All Muslims are terrorists"). Even in the grotesque universe of racist insult, the British make their entry as add-ons. Arse-lickers, they're called.

Suddenly, I, who have been vilified for being "anti-American" and "anti-west", find myself in the extraordinary position of defending the people of America. And Britain.

Those who descend so easily into the pit of racist abuse would do well to remember the hundreds of thousands of American and British citizens who protested against their country's stockpile of nuclear weapons. And the thousands of American war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam. They should know that the most scholarly, scathing, hilarious critiques of the US government and the "American way of life" comes from American citizens. And that the funniest, most bitter condemnation of their prime minister comes from the British media. Finally they should remember that right now, hundreds of thousands of British and American citizens are on the streets protesting the war. The Coalition of the Bullied and Bought consists of governments, not people. More than one third of America's citizens have survived the relentless propaganda they've been subjected to, and many thousands are actively fighting their own government. In the ultra-patriotic climate that prevails in the US, that's as brave as any Iraqi fighting for his or her homeland.

While the "Allies" wait in the desert for an uprising of Shia Muslims on the streets of Basra, the real uprising is taking place in hundreds of cities across the world. It has been the most spectacular display of public morality ever seen.

Most courageous of all, are the hundreds of thousands of American people on the streets of America's great cities - Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco. The fact is that the only institution in the world today that is more powerful than the American government, is American civil society. American citizens have a huge responsibility riding on their shoulders. How can we not salute and support those who not only acknowledge but act upon that responsibility? They are our allies, our friends.

At the end of it all, it remains to be said that dictators like Saddam Hussein, and all the other despots in the Middle East, in the central Asian republics, in Africa and Latin America, many of them installed, supported and financed by the US government, are a menace to their own people. Other than strengthening the hand of civil society (instead of weakening it as has been done in the case of Iraq), there is no easy, pristine way of dealing with them. (It's odd how those who dismiss the peace movement as utopian, don't hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war: to stamp out terrorism, install democracy, eliminate fascism, and most entertainingly, to "rid the world of evil-doers".)

Regardless of what the propaganda machine tells us, these tin-pot dictators are not the greatest threat to the world. The real and pressing danger, the greatest threat of all is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the US government, currently piloted by George Bush. Bush-bashing is fun, because he makes such an easy, sumptuous target. It's true that he is a dangerous, almost suicidal pilot, but the machine he handles is far more dangerous than the man himself.

Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I'd like to file a cautious plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one's weakest enemy at the helm of his forces. And President George W Bush is certainly that. Any other even averagely intelligent US president would have probably done the very same things, but would have managed to smoke-up the glass and confuse the opposition. Perhaps even carry the UN with him. Bush's tactless imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad, has done the opposite. He has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the American empire.

Now that the blueprint (The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire) has been put into mass circulation, it could be disabled quicker than the pundits predicted.

Ref: Guardian, Arundhati Roy
The Guardian, Wednesday April 2 2003

Increasingly, India's environmentalists are linking up with  prominent North Americans. In December, Mumbai will host the 2008 Live Earth Event. Al Gore and Kevin Wall, in conjunction with actor Amitabh Bachchan and environmentalist Dr. R.K. Pachauri, as well as Jon Bon Jovi, will join performers and advocates for a heady mix of green celebrity, Bollywood and rock n' roll - billed as "the largest global entertainment event in history."  The Live Earth audience is estimated at 2 billion via satellite beams into New York, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Rio De Janeiro, Johannesburg and Hamburg.

But not everyone has joined in the excitement. Indian newspapers feature criticism of what Canadian Greenpeace founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, has coined "pop environmentalism." India's eco-battles carry huge stakes; progress and pollution have reached sometimes cataclysmic levels but also a refreshingly sophisticated level of public discourse about the tough choices elected officials have to make. Canada's Moore gets traction for his iconoclastic stance on "green noise" and women such as Vandana Shiva and Arundhati Roy maintain links with international green movements, particularly eco-feminist groups, in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto. Yet how many Canadian "save the planet"activists are aware of these connections?

Ms.Roy, a novelist (Booker Prize winner, 1997), is infamous in India not only for her opposition to the Narmada dam but for her press battles with the grand old man of Indian environmentalism, the historian, Dr. Ramachandra Guha (How much should a person consume? UCLA/Berkeley, 2006).

Both Roy and Guha and many others slug it out in India's venerable Times as well as online journals. Both are committed to what Guha sees as an environmentalism that pivots around social justice as well as biodiversity: "issues of ecology are deeply linked with questions of human rights, ethnicity, and distributive justice." Perhaps Canada's green movement should take heed?

Source: Kashmir Watch

Srinagar, September 18 (Newsline Monitoring Desk):  Arundati Roy, noted human rights activist and writer, in an interview, has suggested "the time has come for the people of Kashmir to ask for Azadi (freedom) from India"

"I think it's the biggest chance Kashmiris have had in their struggle for Azadi in a very long time" she however said she is skeptical that "a spontaneous uprising can 'down-rise' just as spontaneously as it 'up-rose' and hence the people need to act fast"

Calling the security forces as "state forces" Arundhati opined the minute people retreat, these forces will take back the streets. "People cannot go on forever without a clear idea of where it's all going. Right now the Coordination Committee is very fragile and the Intelligence Agencies are trying very hard to break it up" she said.

Arundati said New Delhi has still not learnt its lesson and instead used the same old methods to deal with the situation in Kashmir. "I don't think the Indian state is even now willing to listen to what people are saying" she said "It is trying to work out a way to defuse the situation and how to manage crowds and send them back home"

The booker prize winner writer believes India does not want the vicious cycle of violence to end in Kashmir. "The United Jehad Council has unanimously declared that militants must silence their guns. But the Deep State in India wants nothing more than the return of an armed militancy" she averred "So if real militants don't appear, I think the Deep State will manufacture some"

Arundati maintained that as a right thinking person of the society she will always try to speak out and reveal the truth about issues. Emphasising that sentiments of Kashmiris be respected she said "Some people said I should be charged for the offense of sedition. If so it implies millions of Kashmir's should be charged too. Instead if only I am charged and not them, it would mean a tacit acceptance of the fact that Kashmir is not a part of India"

While stressing that anybody who has ever walked the streets of Srinagar cannot but see the moral legitimacy of what people are demanding she said "It's the least I could do for those who have faced so many years of terror, torture and disappearances. I don't think there could be a single Kashmiri in the valley who has not been humiliated in some way by the occupation

People have raised Pakistani flags in recent demonstrations

The newspaper headlines in the mainly Muslim valley in India-administered Kashmir say it all.

'Freedom is sweet, no matter how it comes', says one. 'People pray for freedom,' chimes another, reporting on Friday prayers in the valley.

A row over transferring land for a Hindu pilgrimage escalated into a nationalist upsurge in the valley in recent months. Some 30 people have died after security forces fired on protests here. Many say the relative calm at present is just the lull before another storm.

In the eye of the storm is the demand for azadi (freedom) for people living in the valley; the latest bout of unrest has brought the contentious issue back into the limelight again.

For many Indians the demand strikes at the heart of the 'idea of India', of a nation that is capable of handling diversity and staying united.

State of mind

But for many of the majority Muslims living in the valley, freedom is the only way to get their pride back. It is the only way, they say, India can redeem itself in the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri.

No wonder, the streets in the valley were agog with cries for freedom during the huge protest processions that the recent crisis triggered off.

People have waved Pakistani flags and belted out pro-Pakistani slogans although, as Booker-prize winning writer Arundhati Roy says, it "would be a mistake to assume that the public expression of affection for Pakistan automatically translates into a desire to accede to Pakistan".

This time, the call for Kashmiri freedom is coming from a generation of young and restless men and women who grew up during the troubled 1990's when the valley was wracked by separatist insurgency.

On Kashmir streets, the yearning for freedom is a state of mind.

In a middle-class neighbourhood in Budgam where two young men were killed by security forces during recent protests, Sheikh Suhail, a 24-year-old mass communications student, makes no bones about it.

"We want azadi," he says, days after he buried a friend who was shot down in the protest.

People say they want 'freedom' from Indian forces

"Nobody quite knows what it will mean for us. We don't know whether we will survive it. I only know that we want freedom from both India and Pakistan," he says.

Across town, in the bustling Dalgate area, Sayed Zubair, a government school teacher, is seething after the security forces shot down his elderly neighbour during a recent curfew.

"We live in fear. A free Kashmir is the only solution to make us feel safe," he says.

His neighbour, Hilal Ahmed, a bank manager, says freedom can help Kashmiris get rid of a twin "stigma".

"India says it is the biggest democracy in the world. Living in Kashmir, we do not get any sense of that. Being a Kashmiri is a curse, being a Muslim is a crime. So we are doubly disadvantaged in these troubled times.

"The only way to set things right is to India get out of our lives and leave us free."

So what does freedom mean for most Kashmiris?

Does it mean a sovereign state? Or does it mean greater autonomy? Many people here say that they prefer a form of self-rule. Does freedom from India mean accession with Pakistan? Or does freedom mean India pulling out its half a million or so troops in the state?

Eroded autonomy

For people like Suhail freedom is an intense sentiment. It is, they say, a breaking off from the "oppressive shackles" of the Indian state. For others like political scientist Dr Noor Ahmad Baba and women's activist Dr Hameeda Nayeem, it is something more substantial.

Many analysts say that the autonomy that Kashmir enjoys under the Indian constitution has been eroded considerably and it is time that the Indian government worked out a new deal for its people.

Tourism is a big draw in Kashmir

Dr Noor Ahmed Baba says that when most Kashmiris say they want freedom, they do not necessarily mean seceding from India.

"The overwhelming people here want independence. But it does not mean a sovereign state. It could be a higher degree of autonomy rooted in a larger understanding with India and Pakistan, both of whom who would pledge not to interfere.

"For us freedom also means more choices about reviving our old trade, cultural and economic roots. We want to come out of seclusion," he says.

Dr Hameeda Nayeem says Kashmiris want self-governance and great internal sovereignty - that is what freedom could essentially mean.

"Let us define self-governance. Whether it will be more autonomy or self-rule. Our borders could be jointly managed by India and Pakistan. We want soft borders and free flow of goods."

She points to the example of the tiny kingdom of Bhutan and wonders why Kashmir cannot have the status of a "protected state" of India like Bhutan.

How could a beautiful valley - with an approximate area 15,520 sq km, only a sixth of the size of Bhutan - cope as an independent country?

'Not realistic'

Omar Abdullah, head of the mainstream National Conference party, admits that that "freedom sentiment" is serious, but has grave doubts about its feasibility.

"How realistic is it? Will Kashmir ever be really free even if it becomes independent, surrounded as it is by India, China and Pakistan?" he wonders.

Pakistan and India have fought two wars over Kashmir

"How free can it be? What happens to Pakistan-administered Kashmir?

"Freedom is not an option. I have yet to see a model of freedom which convinces me that Jammu and Kashmir as a viable independent entity".

The irony is that nothing that is being debated in the valley is new.

The builder of modern India and its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, spoke about a plebiscite in Kashmir and independence for the state with its defence guaranteed by both India and Pakistan.

And Mr Nehru's letter to the maharajah of Kashmir four months after India's independence in 1947 was also chillingly prescient.

"It is of the most vital importance that Kashmir should remain with the Indian Union," he wrote.

"But, however much we may want this, it cannot be done except through the goodwill of the mass of the population.

"Even if military forces held Kashmir for a while a later consequence may be a strong reaction against this.

"Essentially, therefore, this is a problem of psychological approach to the mass of the people and of making them feel they will be benefited by being in the Indian Union.

"If the average Muslim feels that he has no safe and secure place in the Union, then obviously he will look elsewhere. Our basic policy must keep this in view, or else we fail."

Every time an Indian has won the Booker, it has triggered off a boom in the publication of Indian English fiction. This book boom, this opportunity-knocking-repeatedly-on-many-doors, this “democratization” (if it could be called that) of the publishing industry has ensured that the idea of “everyone has a book in him/her” has been stretched to its logical extreme: everyone has a book out now. Everyone? Well, not exactly, but almost. Because, there is no denying the fact that a book's selection is driven by the author's profile. (Consider your novel-in-progress booked if you belong to one or more of the following categories: IIM/IIT graduate, NRI with an MFA, or young and sexy female blogger). Nobody can berate publishers for keeping one eye on the market, and the other on the manuscript. Neither can we blame the writers whose works reflect the hungry haste of our Internet generation, whose novels resemble patchy compilations of blog-posts, and who inspire in an average reader, the urge to pen such a novel herself. 

Welcome to the World of Live and Let Live. Now that we are finished meeting the survivors, let's know its victims. What's happened to them? Ms. Dedication drops dead. Ms.Quality becomes a dejected kite-maker (and it has been observed that a lot of her kites follow a certain fast-paced, gripping formula). Ms. Writing Calibre, widowed, with her varicose veins and heart condition, tries to fly these kites on humid afternoons. 

The rest of us are, as always, misled by the marketing. 

The tragedy doesn't end with Chetan Bhagat's appalling and irksome novels becoming record-breaking best-sellers. The Indian Imagination is laid to rest as other wannabe authors decide to mass produce campus novels. In most cases, these are the literary equivalents of a frame-by-frame remake of the author's autobiography. May be, when they are tired of replicating the university fiction model, new writers would migrate to call-center novels. Or, they might try their luck with chick lit (and in the process, remember to reinforce several references to monsoon and mangoes). 

Since the story doesn't sizzle, what about style? 

Shouldn't innovative use of language be an equally important consideration? Or has it become inconsequential? Friends tell me that the GRE test paper for English Literature contains random passages whose author has to be correctly identified. Where content cannot be clearly demarcated, students rely on style to zero in on the author. Could this be possible with India writing in English? Isn't it an oft-repeated complain that with the exception of Rushdie and Roy, the new generation of Indian writers, even those who manage to bring in regional nuances, read like each other? 

One has to also probe as to why Indian English novels prefer to stick to safe territory? This is not a question of authenticity/credibility: most of these novels are authentic in the tiny (rarely well-researched) worlds which they inhabit. Of course, these novels are accessible only to a small, heterogeneous minority that has no clue about the grassroots reality in India. But, why this hesitancy to try something daring at least in the make-believe universe? In this deeply distrustful, fragmented society where every individual act is capable of subversion and has its own shock-value, why do we have trouble in locating the live-wire in our literature? When Arundhati Roy captured the poetry of Ammu's brownness against Velutha's blackness, we learnt about love's limitless potential to challenge the Love Laws. We shuddered for the lovers, we wept at the various manifestations of violence. But such realistic portrayals are few too less to provide comfort. The complacency is evident from the absence of anxiety to engage with any cause/issue of oppressed people in contemporary Indian English fiction. Remarkable exceptions to this elitist formula from among the new crop of writers are Altaf Tyrewala (No God in Sight) and more recently, Aravind Adiga (White Tiger).

As Indian English fiction shamefacedly enters the big league of pop culture, what we presently seem to lack is the literary equivalent of a talent hunt like Super Singer. Otherwise, hype-wise we are already there. In this backdrop, it is understandable why new novelists are more concerned about readership than content. Naturally, their body of writing ends up more factual than literary. Nepotism and his dignified cousin Networking, have created a scene where anything goes, and everything gets into print. Glitzy book-launches and massive promos cover up these fault lines. Authors turn celebrities and critics conveniently metamorphose into cheerleaders. The bandwagon rolls on. 

Nobody can contest the claim that new Indian fiction in English is clever and confident, but when can we lay hands on a literature that will touch and transform lives? In their much-publicized love affair with the English language, the new generation of Indian writers seem to have gained intimacy, but have unforgivably lost ground. 

This article originally appeared in The New Sunday Express. Read the online version here.

I'm not fond of this awesome blog's name, "Women Against Sarah Palin," (wish it were "People Against McCain's Camp," though that wouldn't draw as much attention), but I *am* down with the sentiment behind the naming: Just because McCain picked a female running-mate doesn't instantly mean women will blindly vote for her.

Palin's got some pretty anti-woman positions that could certainly strip us of rights our foremothers lost a lot of blood, sweat, and tears winning. To vote for Palin, or anyone of her stripe, is to shun that legacy -- might as well reach back a hundred years and slap those women in their faces. I'd rather sustain their efforts and speak out against those who would denigrate them and strip us of them. I know plenty of men who would also rather not retreat to the cave; hence the hope that men will also speak stand against Palin and McCain.

My vote won't go towards simply electing a woman without examining where she stands on specific issues (she'd support a federal ban on marriage equality, send women to back-alley abortions, teach U.S. children creationism which is of the caliber of Scientology, throw immigrants to the wolves that she also pays to have

gunned down by torturous aerial gunners, would drill the Alaskan wilderness to swiss cheese proportions, blames the environment--not people--for global warming, nixes stem cell research setting & eliminates U.S. science from the advances of the rest of the world, the list goes & goes--all in line with McCain), and from what I see, she's not on the side of women's rights. Just as one can discover a self-loathing ____, we can also find a woman who would betray her own rights for personal gain; in this case, Palin has risen in political office & is still trying to climb, no matter the cost and how many women she sells out in the process. That's a serious position to assume. Even her own mother-in-law, Faye Palin, is publicly considering Obama! Cindy McCain's half sister and her son are going to vote for Senator Obama!

"Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but she supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger." --Gloria Steinem

"At least three of Palin's friends from Alaska told "Good Morning America" in an exclusive interview today that they weren't sure who they would vote for in the presidential election in November." --ABC News

Here are a few quotes posted at the Palin blog, as well as some from the more than 60,000 they've received to date:

"The mullahs of the Islamic world and the mullahs of the Hindu world and the mullahs of the Christian world are all on the same side. And we are against them all." - Arundhati Roy

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." —Alice Walker

~

I am a mother of three children, married and Catholic. Ms. Palin does not represent me as a woman living in the United States of America in 2008. She would not have in 1999 nor she would have represented my mother in 1970's but perhaps she would have been a perfect reflection of white conservative women in the 1950's and therefore a perfect representative for them those generations ago where there was an unpopular war and people calling for real change, she would have been perfect then. But we are not women of generations past, we are women of all shades of color living the embodiment of women who can call upon freedoms that no other country boasts.
The American people have become distracted. Palin, participating in this election as a trojan horse, has come with phrases that involve animals and lipsticks, bridges to nowhere, and eBay, leading americans in to an abyss of distractions pulling away from the very sobering facts that who she represents and the policies she supports are a complete replica of the current Bush administration, on paper, and without personality mud-slings, the Palin/MCCain ticket represent 4 more years of the same policies the world has come to hate.

-Mariestella, C., Georgia

~

I am a woman of conscience, the mother of two children whom I adore, a elected member of my local School Board, a faithful churchgoer, an avid reader, and deeply rooted in my community. I have lived both in this country and abroad, and have a college education. I have been a foxhunter (on horseback), have many close friends with children with disabilities, and have recently become both a tae kwan do and a soccer mom. My daughter’s name is Sarah. You might think I have much in common with Sarah Palin.
I have nothing, politically, in common with Sarah Palin.
I care more about the future I leave my children and their children…..and I care more about my neighbor’s grandchildren’s world…than I do about my own purse, or how much I pay in taxes. I care so much about opening possibilities for people to truly take responsibility for their lives that I would never dream of tampering with their right to make choices about how they live their lives. I expect people to hold me fully accountable for all the choices I make in my life, and I don’t look to others to fix my problems for me.
As I said, I have hardly anything in common with Sarah Palin.
- Susan S., New York, NY

~

I am shocked and scared that she is deemed qualified for this high office and that she seems to have fooled so many women. The thought of her in that position with her lack of experience, her delight in mocking another candidate when we need to heal this great divide, and her delight in all this attention. It is mind boggling that many qualified (and less photogenic) women were passed over. Now is NOT the time for political games.
- Sandy K., 69, Duluth, MN

As a woman and, most especially, as an American, Sarah Palin's candidacy for the vice presidency offends me deeply. The Republican platform has proven themselves to be geniuses in their attempts to sell us the "story" of Sarah Palin, and I pray that most people see it for what it is--a story. Her view that climate change is not caused by humans ALONE should sufficiently scare people enough not to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. It is 5 minutes to midnight for our planet--we need leaders who are going to take seriously the extreme peril our planet is in, and not just chant "Drill, Baby, Drill."

The lack of integrity John McCain has shown in his choice, and in his pandering to people he used to refer to as "agents of intolerance" is mortifying.

- Emily P., Crestwood, MO

~

I am completely offended by the idea that today's woman would vote for Sarah Palin on the basis of her gender. I supported Hillary because she was the strongest and most qualified candidate for President, and would never equate her with Sarah Palin. Her positions on the key issues of the day are uninformed and ill-advised, and I will do whatever I can personally to make sure she does not become the VP of the United States. Her nomination is appallingly negligent on the part of the Republican party. Big surprise.
-Angela L., 45, Austin, TX

~

I am a 53 year old woman living in Illinois. I oppose Palin as a V.P. because I believe she represents a move backward, not forward. America needs to shift our approach to meet the challenges. We face a strong China, a growing India and an energy crisis. We need to get out of Iraq. We need a health care system that works for all. We can not use a 1950's mentality of shoot first ask questions later. We can not just keep talking about Vietnam- new world order is here- we've got to move forward not backward.
-R.M., 53, IL

~

As a woman who has lived through the 50's, 60's and 70's (not to mention the 80's and 90's), it warms my heart to see how many strong women have important roles in business and politics today. Sarah Palin is one of those women, but I hope that people look at her record as a politician rather than just her gender when it comes time to vote. This "Hockey Mom" stands politically for almost every type of legislation that hurt women. She talks a good feminine game, but to have her in or near the Oval Office would mean many steps backward for women and would take away much of what we've worked so hard to achieve. McCain said that he chose her because both of them are mavericks, but in fact, Sarah Palin is a throwback to the old conservative ways and is anything but a maverick. Just because she wears high heels doesn't mean she should get the womens' votes.
Diane H., 65, Boulder, CO

~

--Many more write-ins over at the Women Against Sarah Palin blog.

UPDATE: The Facebook Group, "Sarah Palin Is NOT Hillary Clinton" already has 20,300+ members and growing (with new groups popping up such as "Intelligent Women Against Sarah Palin"):

ThinkProgress has put together a document compiling what we know about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) vice presidential running mate. Here are the issues:

* Foreign Policy <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#fp>
* Earmarks <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#earmarks>
* Environment <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#environment>
* Energy <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#energy>
* Big Oil <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#bigoil>
* Science <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#science>
* Women's Rights <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#women>
* Ethics <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#ethics>
* Troopergate <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#troopergate>
* Radical Right <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#right>
* Civil Rights <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#civilrights>
* Health Care <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#healthcare>
* Economy <http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#economy>

~~~~

]]> http://politicalcartel.wordpress.com/?p=793 Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:20:57 +0000 S.C. Denney http://politicalcartel.com/2008/09/09/vishnu-meets-jesus/ A recent article in The New York Times discusses the effects of market liberalization on the caste system in India.  The article revolves around a fellow by the name of Chandra Bhan Prasad, a decedent of the Dalits--considered untouchables in India's caste system-- and an English language reporter--a new breed of Dalits, no doubt.  The article discusses Mr. Prasad's grassroots efforts to educate his fellow Dalits to spend the little money they have on educating their children, turning away from convention untouchable customs (such as animal butchery), and move to the city if possible.  The underlying premises behind Mr. Prsad's efforts are that the emergence of market liberalization and the proliferation of western-style capitalism is slowly dissolving the roles of castes and setting into motion a subtle but noticeable move towards a more equal society.  Mr. Prasad points to the involvement of lower caste citizens in government and the relative rise in the social status of certain untouchables.  In addition to his grassroots efforts, Mr. Prasad is also currently conducting a general statistical survey in his home region of Uttar Pradesh to find a link between economic liberalization and caste stigma mitigation.  Despite a criticism that there is no link between the two, Mr. Prasad continues his studies in hope of finding a reason to back the forces of market liberalization.

For me this article brings to light a critical debate:  is the spread of Western culture and ideas, particularly the principle of market liberalization vis-à-vis command economy markets, generally a beneficial or damaging phenomenon?  For the better part of its history, India's political and economic structure was undergirded by Socialist policies.  Towards the end of the 20th century, India made an about-face in favor of more democratic policies--including a neoclassical market approach.  Fareed Zakaria (a native Indian) in his latest book, A Post American World, identifies this switch in policy as the primary reason for the recent economic and democratic growth in India.  It seems as if the adaptation of Western-style culture and ideas manifested in market liberalization and democratic proliferation has resulted in both economic growth and a rise in social equality.  Can the spread of Western culture and ideas be all that beneficial?  Who doesn't like the concepts of egalitarianism and wealth accumulation?   This question is sort of the harbinger to the question current question:  is globalization really good?

It's a hard question to answer, and I'm certainly not going to answer it in any definitive way here.  To look at this question I want to reference a recent book a read, Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things.Roy's novel tells the story of an Indian family's journey through the tumultuous life of India in the 1960s.  Roy illuminates, in impressive fashion, the issues that confront Indian society, one of which is the influence of Western culture.  Roy, contrary to Zakaria, portrays the infiltration of Western culture, in this case made manifest in the form of consumerism and T.V., as a culturally destruction force.  In the novel, the influences of telecommunication and buying power are portrayed as destruction to unique Indian cultures, customs, and tradition.  To Roy, the influence of Western culture forces itself upon individuals by overloading the senses with flashy images, enticing coupons, and the lure of money.  For Roy, globalization is an affront to the pristine and culturally relative customs of India.  Roy, like Zakaria, is a native Indian--but with an entirely different view of globalization.

I sympathize with Roy's view, I really do.  However, in Roy's novel, none of the positive aspects of globalization are mentioned, like a rise in the standard of living or the subtle pressures to subvert or mitigate caste system norms.  In fact, one of the great tragedies of the story (arguably the greatest tragedy of the story), has to do with the relationship between a Pravada (an untouchable) and certain characters in the story; the end result is tragic.  But don't get me wrong.  I'm not naive.  I know that globalization and market liberalization, especially when ushered in rapidly without control or oversight, can have potentially devastating effects (viz. neoliberal reforms in Latin America).  Also, globalization and market liberalization doesn't mean that the cultures adopting these changes have to make across-the-board concessions to their own cultural ways.  Cultures adopting Western norms can integrate and mix their own cultural norms.  It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.  This is something that Zakaria points out.  India, to him, is adopting its own special Western-Indian cultural dyad.

So, in my (humble) opinion, I say that globalization, done right, is generally a good thing.  However, I am anything but certain on such a bold assertion.

]]> http://sudhan.wordpress.com/?p=3738 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:59:26 +0000 sudhan http://sudhan.de.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/media-india-columnists-support-kashmirs-secession/ Analysis by Rita Manchanda | Independent Press Service,

NEW DELHI, Sep 4  - "Anti-national" is the charge hurled in India at the usual radical suspects who argue for the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people.

But the recent outcrop of media columnists asking Indians to, "think the unthinkable", "let Kashmir go" and "we’d be better off", are respected mainstream editors of leading national dailies and top columnists. They include Vir Sanghvi of the mass-circulation the Hindustan Times, Jug Suraiya of the Times of India, popular columnist Swaminathan A. Aiyar and activist-writer Arundhati Roy.

Moreover, according to a recent public opinion survey, these writers are reflecting growing popular sentiment. A Times of India survey of young professionals conducted across nine cities revealed a sizeable 30 percent polled feeling that if the economic and human costs were so high, India should not hold on to the Kashmir, though 59 percent felt they should hold on at any cost.

Some two-thirds of those polled said ‘No’ to the question whether the state of Jammu and Kashmir [or part of it] should be allowed to secede. Poll analysts explained that contradiction as indicating that, while thinking on Kashmir remains unclear, Kashmir’s possible secession has, for the first time in years, ‘’become a matter of common debate."

What has produced this unsettling in the public perception of restored normalcy in the insurgency-wracked Himalayan valley? Kashmiris are back on streets in tumultuous numbers, defiantly chanting "We want freedom" and with equal intensity, "Long live Pakistan".

The crisis which began two months ago over the proposed transfer of 100 acres forest land in the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley to a Hindu religious Board based in Jammu has shattered the myth of Kashmiris being reconciled to integrating with India. A new twist is the communalisation of the intra-state Jammu- Kashmir divide posited as Hindu nationalists v/s Islamist separatists. It has buried faith in ‘Kashmiriyat’ (or Kashmiriness), the cultural syncretism of the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists of Kashmir.

Indian administered Kashmir consists of three distinct regions: Hindu dominated Jammu, the Muslim majority Kashmir valley and Ladakh, which is largely Buddhist. Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas are administered by Pakistan.

Muslim Pakistan and largely-Hindu but constitutionally secular India have, ever since they were created by the 1947 partition of the subcontinent on religious grounds, been in dispute over the possession of Kashmir. Three wars fought over the issue have not succeeded in altering the fact that two-thirds of the territory is administered by India and one third by Pakistan.

‘Kashmir fatigue’ appears to be driving the new sentiment behind the emerging public debate. "It is not being driven by the recognition of the legitimacy of the Kashmiri people’s right to decide, but by a sense of exasperation at pampered and mollycoddled Kashmiris remaining anti-Indian,’’ says leading Kashmir human rights campaigner Tapan Bose. "Shining India does not want to have the blot of coercively holding onto resentful and alienated Kashmiris,’’ he added.

Sanghvi’s article on Aug. 16 succinctly strikes these several chords -- "What does the Centre get in return for the special favours and billions of dollars spent?" ‘’Far from gratitude, there is active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par with us, lecturing India in human rights". "We have the world to conquer, and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world."

Swaminathan Aiyar and Jug Suraiya have a more liberal perspective. Aiyar acknowledges that "democracy (in Kashmir) has been a farce for almost six decades". There are uncomfortable parallels with colonial rule over British India and the quasi colonialism of India’s rule "over those who resent it" in Kashmir. Suraiya tweaks the argument of Kashmir’s secession fatally wounding the idea of India as a pluralist polity and democratic society. "India can survive without Kashmir, if it has to; it can’t survive without the idea of India, central to which is the idea of democratic dissent and the free association of people". This is being eroded in holding Kashmiris against their will.

Arundhati Roy, writing in the ‘Guardian’ on Aug. 22, gives it a radical twist: "India needs azadi (freedom) from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India". Roy asserts, that "the non-violent people’s protest is nourished by people’s memory of years of repression". Drawing a wider frame, she warns that "Indian military occupation makes monsters of us and allows Hindu chauvinists to target and victimise Muslims in India by holding them hostage to the freedom struggle being waged in Kashmir’’.

Expressing surprise at such articles by people who (except Roy) have never campaigned for azadi, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, executive editor of the respected ‘Kashmir Times’ newspaper said: "We have always campaigned for 'azadi'. This is just the wrong time. Nobody thinks about the repercussions of the disintegration of the state on communal lines (especially, Doda, Rajouri and Poonch). Whose azadi are they talking about? The need is to douse the fires and begin dialogue at different levels."

Among the flurry of reactive articles, representative of the national security line is strategic analyst K. Subrahmanyam writing in the Times of India on Aug. 22 is adamant against any redrawing of borders. Subrahmanyam, a known nationalist, warns that if Kashmiris are allowed to secede, ‘’there would be consequences that have to be anticipated’’.

‘’During the partition of the subcontinent in 1947-48, such consequences were not foreseen and the result was a bloodbath resulting the death of a million people and ethnic cleansing involving 15 million,’’ Subrahmanyam argues.

Appealing for greater responsibility and efforts to retrieve ‘Kashmiriyat’, eminent journalist Kuldip Nayar warned in the ‘Deccan Herald’ on Aug. 29 that the independence of Kashmir would mean a takeover of the territory by the Taliban or terrorists. Political editor of ‘The Hindu,’ Harish Khare, has on Aug. 28 cautioned against "over reacting to provocative slogans in Lal Chowk’’ and said there is ‘’no need to be apologetic about our democratic values and practices". Kashmir society could still be "weaned away from violence, distrust and suspicion."

Sultan Shaheen, editor of the website ‘New Age Islam’, has decried the ‘irresponsibility’ of public intellectuals arguing for letting Kashmir go. "What about the nationalist Muslims of Kashmir? It was the vision of secularism and pluralism that had brought them to India in the first place. Kashmir is important for common Indians because Kashmiriyat is a prototype for Hindustaniyat -- a unique blend of unity in ideological diversity."

(END/2008)

This Is The Real Picture Of Indian Politics.

A Great Story I received today by mail & would like to share this wonderful story with you all.

An Old Story:

The Grasshopper thinks the Ant is a fool and laughs & dances & plays the summer away.

Come winter, the Ant is warm and well fed. The Grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

 Indian Version:

Medha Patkar goes on a fast along with other Grasshoppers demanding that Grasshoppers be relocated to warmer climates during winter.

Amnesty International and Koffi Annan criticize the Indian Government for not upholding the fundamental rights of the Grasshopper.

The Internet is flooded with online petitions seeking support to the Grasshopper (many promising Heaven and Everlasting Peace for prompt support as against the wrath of God for non-compliance) .

Opposition MPs stage a walkout. Left parties call for 'Bengal Bandh' in West Bengal and Kerala demanding a Judicial Enquiry. CPM in Kerala immediately passes a law preventing Ants from working hard in the heat so as to bring about equality of poverty among Ants and Grasshoppers.

Lalu Prasad allocates one free coach to Grasshoppers on all Indian Railway Trains, aptly named as the 'Grasshopper Rath'.

Finally, the Judicial Committee drafts the ' Prevention of Terrorism Against Grasshoppers Act' [POTAGA], with effect from the beginning of the winter.

Arjun Singh makes 'Special Reservation ' for Grasshoppers in Educational Institutions & in Government Services.

The Ant is fined for failing to comply with POTAGA and having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes; its home is confiscated by the Government and handed over to the Grasshopper in a ceremony covered by NDTV.

 Arundhati Roy calls it ' A Triumph of Justice'.

 Lalu calls it 'Socialistic Justice '.

 CPM calls it the ' Revolutionary Resurgence of the Downtrodden '

 Koffi Annan invites the Grasshopper to address the UN General Assembly.

 Many years later...

The Ant Has Since Migrated to The US and set up a multi billion dollar company.

100s of grasshoppers still die of starvation despite reservation somewhere in India,

And

As A result of losing lot of Hard working Ants and feeding the grasshoppers

India Is Still A Developing Country.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So isn’t the exact story of Indian Politics?

DO COMMENT ON THIS>>BE THE PART OF CHANGE>>

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Nothing good comes out from a debate- my mother and sister have always held this opinion! Because face it neither party accedes to the other and no resolution crops up, all that happens is just non-stop blabbering! While I would agree that no consensus is derived from any debate (be it amongst anybody) I still think that it helps you to know more than what you already do! And that view has been strengthened after this recent on going Kashmir drama happening at home! What it has been weeks now? Papers, editorials, news channels, debate shows, radio polls all discussing what should ideally be the fate of Kashmir in this modern era?

Now Kashmir is a topic that is sensitive to not only Indians but also our friends from across the border! That is one bone of contention between us that has led to massive wars and eternal enmity ever since we got our independence from the British Raj (and each other)! So it’s a no win situation for either party to think of any resolution that does not appease the popular perception! Growing up hating Pakistan came relatively easy because of the Kashmir issue, but continuing to hate it was harder. Purely because as you grow up you are exposed to actual facts rather than just text book jargon! Besides interaction with people, ideas, culture across the world facilitated by the internet revolution just made it easier! So the topic of Kashmir became relatively relative! What was Kashmir just another land under dispute, it wasn’t something I was ready to risk everything for unlike as a child…

So incidents from the recent week made me think a lot about what was right and wrong not only for Kashmir but also for India! And honestly I was fed up of the terrorism in this country largely attributable to the Kashmir conflict! Friends, who lost their parents, loved ones their sorrow resonated clearly in my heart! So when you had 15^th August beginning with burning of Indian flags and mocked with slogans like Nanga bhookha Hindustan, jaan se pyaara Pakistan (Naked, starving India, More precious than life itself—Pakistan) my disgust for the situation perpetuated into raw anger! Get on with the cessation I screamt, I no longer want these anti-Indian minded people as a part of this land, I love and respect! Being a secular liberal I thought it made sense if people don’t want you, why force them into wanting you? If they choose to integrate with Pakistan in spite of its own massive problems and pathetic political plight over decades now let them folly wishfully!

But then you watch debates, you read political magazines, savour editorials with views from both sides of the intellectual brigade and you begin to analyse without the purdah of pre conceived views and out of the emotional domain of being driven by patriotism! I read some excellent views both for and against Azadi for Kashmir! And while I tilted to the thought of giving freedom to Kashmir on the basis of the freedom we in fact needed from them my views changed rapidly once we had non-Muslim intellectuals, moderate liberal activists and zero politicians on shows! For simple reasons outlined by them it just made sense that the basis of the Kashmiris asking for Azadi rendered it nonsensical as they were not the only voice of the valley!!

What about the the 300,000 Kashmiri pundits who were thrown out of their homes overnight and forced to live like refugees within India by the very people who claim to want 'freedom' from India. It is also an insult to the thousands of Kashmiri-Indians (80,000 since militancy began in the 1980's), who were murdered by the violent acts committed by these people. Where do they slot in? And what the heck is wrong with pointing out the plight of Hindus in the valley or across India? Why should only Muslim atrocities be highlighted be it a Gujurat or a Kashmir? Time for Azadi for Kashmir was 60 years back. But they opted for India, we don't care whether it was through Hari Singh or Sheikh Abdullah. Some people claim we must stick to the UN referendum of a plebiscite! But the same referendum asked for Pakistan to withdraw itself from the region and not change the demographic set up which they already have! So where does the UN referendum even count now? Why should only India put up with its side of the bargain!You want a referendum get back each and every Pandit in the valley, then lets talk about our Kashmir!

Nation's territories are not for bargain or sale. If some people are discontent living in India, better they seek asylum or flee to the countries they think have better prospects and life. Any anti-national activities ( Naxals, Maoists) should not be tolerated because it directly affects the other millions that consider this place home. The Khalistan issue should be a precedent with this regards, that movement had no substance so does this one too! If we allow people to choose regions based on culture and religious basis there would be no India soon, because, DMK wants separate Tamil Nadu, Sikhs wanted separate Punjab,  Telugu people want separate Telengana, Thackeray would opt for an independent Maharashtra and the list goes on..

That is certainly not how a county is ruled and certainly we are not driven by any Islamic propaganda of just one religion being the center of the universe!

I recently came across Arundhati Roy's article on Outlook, and while she is supposed to be of political astute mind she forever comes across as a one book wonder, self proclaimed anti-Indian minded human being! She is anti-development, anti-unity, anti-Hindu period! Forever harrumphing at any world stage about the miserable plight of Indians or the plight of minorities she seems to only speak where nothing productive can be achieved! Isn't this the same "environmental activist" who built a house in the forest of  MP violating all environmental laws? Isn't she the same one who hijacked the High Court in Bangalore to protest some verdict that was not pleasant to her? So who is she to blame the country for its non perfection when she stoops to her own lows when things aren’t going her way! I believe there is a thin line between democracy and being anti-national and Ms Roy certainly tows the latter!

India is not an autocratic China or a split-personality USA and definitely not a Pakistan. It is a secular democracy not a perfect one by any means but the best within the worst of the region! If it weren’t the case would the so called minority Muslims be able to hold their authority over a Hindu (so perceived majority) pilgrimage matter! To refuse to part with land for just 2 months and boldly claim that it’s a Muslim land? Would western audience catering liberalists like Ms Roy be able to get away with idiotic statements now and again and making Hinduism and India seem like an Aids of this world? Would the Kashmiris get away with disrespect to National Flag (This should have been considered as felony and the people who were recorded in video cameras should have been brought to book. No matter what a person feels about his role in Kashmir, no one gets the right to disrespect the FLAG. I remember, when Sachin Tendular cut a colour cake he was asked to apologise) and derogatory remarks about the country? What would happen say in a China (we all know what happened in Tibet) or Pakistan or any Islamic country if these things happened! No need to answer that! So I believe its time to take a firm stand against these so called separatists and intellectuals of our society to pack their bags and leave!

No one is denying the gross human violations and other pitiful acts happening in Kashmir! We give a lot to the state but don’t do enough! India comes second to number of terrorist attacks each year after Iraq (only because of Kashmir) and yet you have millions of jawans ready to give their life up and still do, what about their sacrifices! And why listen to only a few hundred voices when crores of us matter as Indians. The first step is to do away with article 370, integrate Kashmir with India and then see to it that they are treated as equals with every right to freedom and liberty! Withdraw the army and let them have a normal existence, things will change within a few years! This anti- Indian sentiment is fanned by just a few separatists with backing from the ISI! I don’t see us as occupiers of Kashmir, we never invaded them they chose to be with us! And now if any country lays claim to it on basis of religion it doesn’t mean we have to comply! What about places in India where Muslims are a majority do we then slowly give that up too? What about China telling Arunachal Pradesh is theirs, then would we be called occupiers then too, the list is never ending! Kashmir is an integral part of India and come what may we must change our attitude in the valley! Give them the peace and liberty they require, automatically the freedom will follow...

To the others who still want to leave the country like Mr Geelani and the other Hurriyat members and coupled with Kashmiris who want to leave feel free to do so, there is always PoK across the border where you can practice your so called free Islam! I am personally happy to sponsor a few tickets and surely the rest of us billion large hearted Indians will be willing to chip in too! You want to leave the country then just scout away with your personal belongings! The land belongs to all of us not just to a few of you!

Who says debates dont help! They do....

Read: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3378687.cms

Hope Ms Roy Reads this:

Indian Needs Azadi From Arundhati Roy As Much As Arundhati Roy Needs From India

I am not getting into the merits or demerits of 'azaadi', several luminaries have provided their educated views on that. I am talking about the Indian Soldier. The biggest accusation Ms. Roy makes is against the armed forces and how all they have done is commit unspeakable atrocities against the populace. These are humans in battle fatigues, these soldiers are fighting someone else's battle. They do not enjoy killing or maiming other Indians or for that matter any human. This struggle is not of their making. No one wants to live in sub zero temperatures with the shadow of death hovering around. They have left behind families and the comforts of home. They fight and guard our borders so some of us can sit in plush homes and shamelessly pass judgements. What about the casualities in the army? Why doesn't she talk about those deaths? Don't they need a voice as well. Their deaths are painful losses for their familes. These are not trigger happy cowboys madam. These are men who live by one tenet - duty to the country, which pseudos like you cannot understand or fathom.

The only institution that has withstood corruption in a materialistic India is the armed forces - not the media, not the judiciary. And it bears its cross uncomplaining. Low salaries, difficult living conditions and to top it these taunts by the 'thinkers'. We have had a surfeit of babble from Arundhati, please write another novel as that is what you are best at.

I am proud of our armed forces and prouder of martyrs like Col. Thomas. May your sacrifice not go in vain. May our countrymen learn to value the true worth of the Indian Soldier. And some day may some intellectual write paeans for you too.

ALOK PRASANNA writes from Bangalore: Lawyers love being contra. I am a lawyer. Ergo this post is about being contra.

Since the “majority” opinion according to The Times of India, CNN-IBN, and just about any reporter with a microphone to thrust in someone’s faces seems to be that we should not let Kashmir “go”, an irresistible urge demands that I oppose the majority and give good reasons for it (unlike those who base their arguments on “self-determination” and silly liberal bullshit like that).

And since I am in a good mood these days, I will also tell you why whichever option enlightened Kashmiri separatists choose, Pakistan or bust (i.e., “self” rule), we should happily open the door for them, and send them off with a cheery wave and a goodbye kiss.

So, here goes: four reasons why we must let Kashmir go to Pakistan:

1. Pakistan has a favoured way of dealing with troublesome mountainous border provinces with strong self-determination streaks. They let the Americans bomb them. Syed Ali Shah Geelani and his ragtag ilk will soon long for the kid gloves of the Indian military establishment.

2. We already have enough ethnic-cleansing, appeasement-hating, persecution-complex bound “minorities who are actually majorities” (the Sangh Parivar) and maybe Pakistan could use a few (more).

3. Pareto Efficiency. It saves us a lot of money to put one less national language on our currency notes. Of course it won’t cost the Pakistanis any since there is only one national language, and last I heard, Kashmiri it wasn’t.

4. Once it realizes that the “Kashmir problem” is settled, Pakistan will realize that it has no reason to exist. Two birds with one stone.

Of course, there is a strong section of the Kashmiri separatist movement which believes that “independence” is the best course for the Valley.

If the tender ministrations of Pakistani “administration” does not convince them to stay on, and they decide “we don’t need an unresponsive foreign government to make burdensome laws, we can make our own”, well I say we let them.

So, here goes: four reasons why we must let Kashmir claim independence:

5. Military: Their neighbours will be India, Pakistan and China. No country can claim such a host of dangerously unstable, nuclear armed, overambitious, territorially hungry nations. Even NATO membership won’t save you. As Georgia is still finding out.

6. Economy: It saves us the blank cheque that we write them every year, and we can actually have greater control over them since we will be their biggest and only trading partner (no routes in from China, and Pakistan doesn’t have an economy). We will control the only safe air routes into Srinagar, and the only all weather road and train link into Kashmir. Man, we can make them dance like a monkey on a stick. Maybe they’ll even provide as much entertainment as the erstwhile “Royal” Nepal.

7. Politics: Watch as Geelani and his ilk find that fasts, bandhs, marches, strikes, threats to sign up with militants is not exactly a popular way to run a Government. It’ll be great fun on a slow news day.

8. They get to keep Arundhati Roy.

There, that’s 8 good reasons to let Kashmir go.

In a year or two, watch this space for “8 reasons why we should let Kashmir back in”.

Map: courtesy University of Texas at Austin

Also read: 'What Pakistan didn't in 60 years, BJP has in six weeks'

‘BJP today is the best friend of the Lashkar-e-Toiba’

CHANDAN MITRA: ‘Advocates of Azadi should be tried for treason’

CHURUMURI POLL: Is an ‘economic blockade’ OK?

PRATAP BHANU MEHTA: ‘Amarnath is about communalism not nationalism

"Last weekend two prominent newspaper columnists [Swaminathan Aiyar in The Sunday Times, and Vir Sanghvi in The Hindustan Times] wrote about the need to think out-of-the-box urging us to seriously consider if it is morally right to hold "unwilling" Kashmiris back in this country.

"I agree with them.... But under no circumstances can Indian citizens be allowed to promote secession.

"Advocating the right of Kashmiris to secede, as a professional female agitator [Arundhati Roy]... reportedly did in Srinagar, is tantamount to treason and must invite provisions contained in the law relating to waging war against the State.

"Personally, I feel that even publicising such treasonable views, leave alone using dedicated columns to indulge in secessionist propaganda, should invite the charge of promoting terrorism and anti-national activity."

Read the full column: Better Mush than traitors

For the past sixty days or so, since about the end of June, the people of Kashmir have been free. Free in the most profound sense. They have shrugged off the terror of living their lives in the gun-sights of half-a-million heavily-armed soldiers in the most densely militarised zone in the world.

After 18 years of administering a military occupation, the Indian government's worst nightmare has come true. Having declared that the militant movement has been crushed, it is now faced with a non-violent mass protest, but not the kind it knows how to manage.

This one is nourished by people's memory of years of repression in which tens of thousands have been killed, thousands have been 'disappeared', hundreds of thousands tortured, injured, raped and humiliated. That kind of rage, once it finds utterance, cannot easily be tamed, re-bottled and sent back to where it came from.

[Azaadi means freedom]

more

"Last weekend two prominent newspaper columnists [Swaminathan Aiyar in The Sunday Times, and Vir Sanghvi in The Hindustan Times] wrote about the need to think out-of-the-box urging us to seriously consider if it is morally right to hold "unwilling" Kashmiris back in this country.

"I agree with them.... But under no circumstances can Indian citizens be allowed to promote secession.

"Advocating the right of Kashmiris to secede, as a professional female agitator [Arundhati Roy] (who believes the Vajpayee Government staged the December 13, 2001 attack on Parliament) reportedly did in Srinagar, is tantamount to treason and must invite provisions contained in the law relating to waging war against the State.

"Personally, I feel that even publicising such treasonable views, leave alone using dedicated columns to indulge in secessionist propaganda, should invite the charge of promoting terrorism and anti-national activity."

Read the full column: Better Mush than traitors