Saturday, February 9, 2013

‘Rock on’, Pragaash!


What does it mean to be free?

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB



How long can force, threats of force and social boycotts stop the spread of ideas and arguments? New Delhi did everything it could - naming, shaming and maiming - to banish the azadi sentiments of Kashmiris: clearly, it has failed as azadi continues to remain a popular political sentiment in Kashmir’s heartland. Artistic expressions and ideas are as strong as those of nationalism. Will the opportunistic coming together of Kashmir’s Sarkari Grand Mufti, liberal dissident Mirwaiz, radicals such as Asiya Andrabi and Ali Shah Geelani be able to muffle the Kashmiri youth’s demand for azadi to express themselves? While the CRPF may have no business in Kashmir’s cultural landscape including organizing rock festivals, I will fiercely defend the rights of the three young school-going Kashmiri girls to participate in rock concerts. If we, as a society, don’t defend the rights of our children to sing and dance, there is something fundamentally wrong with us. The silver lining, of course, is that the more Kashmiris I speak to, the more I realize that there is very little support for this ‘silencing act’ inside Kashmir.  

Words as performatives 
In analyzing the ongoing ‘Pragaash’ controversy, some analysts have argued that there is no need to bother with the Grand Mufti’s fatwa as he is not considered to be a major religious figure nor are his words taken seriously by anyone. The problem with this line of thinking is that it stops short of understanding the impact of the spoken word. Words, let us face it, are not merely words. They have to be seen and understood as ‘performatives’ or actions in themselves. If words are understood as actions, then words spoken by those with the ability to influence and mold the opinions of others will have even more seriousness and consequences. While one might choose to ignore the words of the Grand Mufti, the words of liberal, young leaders such as the Mirwaiz have the power to influence the minds of people which then result in certain actions. 

The embedded illiberalism of the Fatwa 
Notwithstanding the fact that telling people not to sing is illiberal enough, what is even more illiberal and indeed profoundly patriarchal is the fact that there is a deep-seated gender bias in the campaign against Pragaash. The self-appointed conscience-keepers of Kashmir’s morality were not unnerved when Kashmiri boys played rock music. Only when the Kashmiri girls started doing the same did they realize the indecency and the threat to Islam in it. What is to be noted, as many analysts have pointed out, is that there is a clear emphasis on the ‘girls’ morality’ by the anti-Pragaash brigade. Hence the Kashmiri girls are not merely deprived of the opportunity to express their artistic talents but also deeply discriminated against. How can the Mirwaiz demand that he be heard by the world and New Delhi when he clearly deprives the children of his community of their to be heard? 

Azadi from repressive ideas and ideologies 
Azadi is a laudable virtue and the consistent fight for it is even more laudable. But azadi is not just a political rallying point, it has to do with every aspect of a community’s existence - political, emotional, cultural etc. Hence, while the Kashmiri struggles for political azadi, he/she should also fight for azadi from the clutches of repressive ideas, ideologies, leaders, and worldviews. How can you fight for azadi when your very thinking and politics have run counter to the fundamental imperatives of azadi? How can your demand for azadi be legitimate in the eyes of the world, whose conscience you so often invoke, when you delegitimize the freedom of expression of the children of your community? Azadi will surely become an unviable political call the moment it becomes a restrictive, discriminatory tool of political convenience at the hands of its vanguard.

Why jail youngsters?
The Omar government has a habit of going for the overkill. Media reports suggest that a number of school-going youngsters have been booked by the J&K police for threatening Pragaash on facebook. Not only that such police action makes absolutely no sense for the simple fact that youngsters have impressionable minds and they tend to react emotionally when people in authority make emotional arguments about religion and culture.  How on earth can the J&K police jail school students for what they have written on facebook when indeed this is a direct result of the provocative statements made by some people who assume moral and religious authority? Minors should at best be warned, not jailed. But then what can you expect of a government that justifies the incarceration of minors under the Public Security Act? 

Is Kashmir being Talibanised?Of course not, and the people of Kashmir will tell you that. Kashmir is a victim of too many protectors. It is an overprotected society: while some people protect it in the name of national security and public safety, some others protect it in the name of morality and religious piety. The ordinary Kashmiri merely wants to live like a normal human being, with simple pleasures and ordinary dreams. It is the guardians- local, national, religious, moral etc. – who try to demonise Kashmir, Kashmiris and the other. And despite all this, Kashmir will continue to be a liberal society. 

Freedom of speech and its discontents 
Let us not miss the irony here. The most ironical spectacle of the past week has been the self-righteous Indian media’s unrelenting battle cry for freedom of speech in Kashmir.  While that is surely a noble cause, they habitually forget about Kashmir’s consistent demand for ‘freedom from fear’ which, in a sense, forms the basis for all other kinds of human freedom. For the most part, the mainstream Indian media defines the genuine aspirations of Kashmiris in terms of what contributes to the national interest of the Indian state. 

Finally, a caveat. If the argument is about how to negotiate modernity and alien cultures in Kashmir’s local politico-cultural space, which indeed is a necessary debate, then the tenor of the debate has to be drastically different. But let us be clear that in this age and era, no society/culture can afford to be an island; we will have to learn to accept the other, assimilate the values of the other, promote one’s own, and tolerate cultural mutations, even as preserving the core elements of what we are and what defines us. There is no getting away from that. 

(Happymon Jacob teaches at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Monday, February 4, 2013

In the name of Khan


Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB


The recent controversy and the politics thereafter in the name of Shah Rukh Khan was triggered by an article entitled “Being a Khan” that the Bollywood actor wrote in the Outlook magazine in January 2013. Pakistan’s half-witted Interior Minister Rehman Malik, obviously without having read the article, offered an unsolicited piece of advice to the Indians: “He (Shahrukh) is born Indian and he would like to remain Indian, but I will request the government of India (to) please provide him security”. The actor clarified saying that he is safe and secure in India. The Indian Home Secretary responded to Pakistan, “We are capable of looking after the security of our own citizens. Let him (Rehman Malik) worry about his own.” To add fuel to fire, the Chief of Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, Mahmood Madani said, “It is better to die than to live a life with the support of Pakistan.”

This might look like a straightforward and sequential narration of a recent controversy that is no more the headline of the day. Since this column is late by a day this week, I have had some free Sunday time to deconstruct the politics that lies beneath this otherwise inconsequential controversy. Of course, I am reading into it, but then that’s what I do for a living. 

The politics of competitive protection
The Khan controversy is nothing new in the India-Pakistan context. A considerable amount of Indians and Pakistanis revel in pointing out that the minorities on the other side of the border are unsafe, that they would be better served if they were elsewhere (meaning if they crossed over), and often offering unsolicited protection to those “persecuted” by the other side. Of course, those indulging in this politics of competitive protection do not bother with what might happen to the minorities once they become the enemy country’s object of protection. The Pakistani offer of protection to the Indian Muslims and the return offer to Pakistani Hindus by the Indian side have only made their lives worse. More importantly, there is a need to take a step back and ‘read further into’ this protection offer from a sociological point of view. Legendary historian Charles Tilly argued that governments are in the habit of running ‘protection rackets’. Governments extract resources from people in exchange of giving them protection from dangers which, Tilly famously observes, are often imaginary or are created by the governments themselves by their own activities. Those Indian and Pakistani leaders who are in the ‘business of offering protection’ to select audiences on the other side should consider for a moment whether their own actions are contributing to insecurity and danger for those they are offering to protect. 

Politics of ownership
There is also a politics of ownership that is being played out here. When the Pakistani statesmen talk about protection for Kashmiris and other Muslims in India and when Indians talk about the need to protect Hindus in Pakistan, what they are actually doing is symbolically crossing the border to own a part of the other country’s construction of the self. Making sure that the objects of their concern, Kashmiris, Muslims and Hindus, are indeed safe is really not their objective, and we know that for sure from history. Consider, for instance, the fact that both India and Pakistan have killed scores of Kashmiris in the name of protecting them! 

Politics of hate 
Lurking under the politics of protection is also the politics of hate. The Shiv Sena which lost no time in responding to Rehman Malik, has in the past threatened Shah Rukh Khan, more than once. In 2010, for instance, when Shah Rukh, himself a IPL team owner, argued that Pakistani players should allowed to play in IPL games and that 'Mumbai belongs to all Indians', the Shiv Sena asked Shah Rukh to apologise or face the consequences. How ironical it is then that they are today claiming that “the Indian government is capable of protecting its citizens”. Wonder who will protect Shah Rukh from the Siv Sena! 

On the other side of the border the Jamaat-ud Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed invited Shah Rukh back to his ‘original homeland’ so that he could be safe there. That this comes from a man whose ideology and designs have killed scores of Indians and Pakistanis, including Muslims, shows the irony of the politics of hate.

Politics of symbolic protection
Another famous American historian, Frederic Lane, examining the interlinked development of war making, state making, and capital accumulation, argued that the “governments are in the business of selling protection ... whether people want it or not”. Indeed, this is precisely what we are seeing today where some overzealous and over-concerned Pakistanis are offering protection to Shah Rukh Khan, Indian Muslims and even to the Kashmiris even when the ‘objects of their protection’ do not want it. 

The government of India justifies the stationing of the Indian armed forces in Kashmir and the continuation of special legal provisions such as the Public Safety Act, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Disturbed Areas Act on the basis of the need to provide protection to the people of Kashmir when the Kashmiris do not need or want such protection, and have consistently made that argument clear to the government in New Delhi. The problem is that governments, including the one in New Delhi, are so used to the logic and rationale of ‘protection business’ that they ‘force’ protection on people without bothering to ask the people what their real aspirations/needs are. What is even more unfortunate is that this “uncalled for” protection itself is responsible for the insecurity of the Kashmiris.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, February 5, 2013. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Feb/5/in-the-name-of-khan-16.asp )