|
Kashmir
Sell-out: Indian black-sheep in US
Yatindra
Bhatnagar
San
Francisco Bay Area is unique in some respects and the so-called
“intellectuals and secular” big wigs, more so. That was amply
demonstrated here, sometime back, when some prominent Kashmiri
activists, including those whose families have suffered as a result
of the ongoing terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir State of India, were
kept away. They were not
allowed to participate in a significant manner in a discussion of
Kashmir and only after some animated protest, one person was given
“two minutes” and the other 20 seconds. Several others
interested in raising points were deliberately shut out.
“
A Discussion Forum on Kashmir” was organized by Professor Angana
Chatterji of the California Institute of Integral Studies. This
venerable institution is now becoming “famous” for anti-India,
anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim and pro-Pakistan events and speakers. The
Forum was addressed by Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy of Pakistan, Dr. Ghulam
Nabi Fai of the Kashmiri American Council and others.
One
of the Kashmiri activists, Dr. Amrit Nehru, a reputed dentist of Los
Angeles was invited by one of the organizers, Akhila Raman, a
“researcher on Kashmir,” at Berkeley. It was understood that Dr.
Nehru was invited as a “liberal Kashmiri,” probably meaning that
he was not one who would think the accession of Jammu and Kashmir
State to India was “final” and that there are “freedom
fighters” active in the State and not terrorists sponsored by
Pakistan.
To
the surprise of Raman, Dr. Nehru gave a piece of his mind about the
truth on Kashmir to her, on phone, from Los Angeles, and challenged
the “stage-managed Forum” with no balance, no diversity of
speakers and a definite tilt toward Pakistan. This set-up,
obviously, was not meant to be a balanced display of diverse
opinion. However, when Nehru showed up, with another couple of
Kashmiris at the Forum, he was initially refused a chance to address
the audience.
An
emotional Nehru insisted that a Discussion on Kashmir Forum should
not shut out Kashmiris and he be allowed to speak. The main
organizer, Dr. Angana Chatterji of CIIS then relented a bit and
agreed to give “two minutes” to Nehru and “20 seconds” to
another activist Kishore Kaul.
Nehru
commended Dr. Hoodbhoy’s plain speaking about the incredible
domination of Pakistani military in all the facets of Pakistan’s
life, and its responsibility for starting wars against India and
supporting terrorism across the borders. But he blasted Dr. Fai’s
assertions about terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba. He was
surprised that the so-called Kashmir- lovers have not demanded China
to vacate the grabbed part of Kashmir in the East, and the other
part gifted by Pakistan to China in the West.
Chatterji,
who was generous in giving time to other speakers, and herself every
now and then, did not allow questions from those she thought might
put forth uncomfortable points. To one would-be-questioner, who
constantly raised his hand, she said “what incentive do I have to
allow you to put a question…”
After
the Forum was over, the Kashmiri groups and some others confronted
the three main speakers Dr. Fai, Dr. Hoodbhoy and Akhila Raman.
While Hoodbhoy got compliments for speaking the truth about
Pakistan’s support for terrorism since 1987, Dr. Fai was not
spared. He was challenged on his assertions that the State did not
legally accede to India, that there was no terrorists but only
‘Freedom fighters” in Kashmir, and that Jammu and Kashmir was
not an integral part of India. He dodged all the questions by saying
that each one needs a day to explain.
Akhila
Raman was accused of a definite tilt and misstatements in her slide
show at the Forum. Her theory that Maharaja Hari Singh was a brutal
ruler and the Muslims were subjected to atrocities was vehemently
challenged. Her equating India with Pakistan was also blasted by the
Kashmiris, and some other persons, who demanded that she make it
clear that Pakistan had invaded Kashmir and that the State had
legally acceded to India; and that there is no ambiguity about this
position.
Earlier,
during the main session Dr. Hoodbhoy had blamed Pakistan’s
military and intelligence agencies for starting and supporting
terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. He said that Pakistani generals
foolishly thought that by this covert war they could bleed India dry
but saw Pakistan’s own economy crashing. He mentioned his talks
with military dictator General Musharraf, whom he candidly told that
the covert war was started with invalid reasons and that it has not
weakened India. In the process Pakistan has lost international
support, he maintained.
Dr.
Fai was much less truthful with his assertions that Jammu and
Kashmir did not legally accede to India, that the accession was not
accepted by the international body, and that no amount of
India-Pakistan talks would solve the “Kashmir dispute.”
Dr.
Fai maintained that Tashkent, Simla, Lahore and Agra talks between
India and Pakistan have failed, and it’s time we start talks at
all levels. Fai favors an independent Kashmir, an internationally
acclaimed mediator such as Nelson Mandela of South Africa, and talks
at several levels between Kashmiri groups, India, Pakistan and the
UN.
Asserting
that there could be no military solution of “Kashmir dispute,”
Dr. Fai said that 2 million Kashmiris have petitioned the UN for the
right of self determination and that the Hurriyat is the real
representative of the Kashmiri Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and
Christian people. However,
he did not give any reason why the Hurriyat is shy to participate in
democratic elections, even opposes them. This stand had given rise
to terrorism, more killing of candidates and voters. .
Fai
also advocated that the solution of “Kashmir dispute” can not be
found in the history, constitution or declared positions of India or
Pakistan but should be outside and beyond everything. In this
context he quoted India’s Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who
a few months back said in Srinagar that “insaniyat” (humanity)
was more important and we should try and find a solution beyond the
parameters of the constitution.
|
