How to Resist and Why?
By: Gowhar Geelani
The other day I read a very interesting and stimulating article on the Palestinian resistance movement by Linah Alsaafin. She is a recent graduate of Birzeit University in the West Bank. Born in Cardiff, Wales, Alsaafin was raised in England, the United States and Palestine. I thought a little background of the author is necessary in the overall context of the subject under discussion. Among many things which the author has articulated in her article, the one argument that strikes me the most is this: “Oppressed people do not and should not have to explain their oppression, nor tailor their resistance to the comfort of their oppressors and their supporters.” She further argues that ‘unfortunately even some “enlightened” Palestinians champion “non-violent resistance” and consider throwing a rock to be a violent act.’ The author describes phrases like “Palestinian peaceful resistance” and “Palestinian non-violent resistance” as ‘superficial adjectives’. The “Gandhian-style resistance” too invites her ridicule. As a Kashmiri, one is tempted to draw parallels between the Palestinian predicament and the Kashmiri confusion on this burning question of which mode of resistance should be preferred and why?
I vividly remember the words of one professor who once castigated Kashmiri protestors, especially those rock-throwing boys in their teens protesting during the anti-India demonstrations in three consecutive summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010. The learned professor had argued that Kashmiris were no better than the faithless Victorians who renowned English poet, Mathew Arnold, found struggling and fighting like the "ignorant armies [that] clash by night", and that Philip Larkin, another English poet, denounces for ignoring their present and working for some unknown future. He further articulated: "The Victorian England suffered from disillusionment and Kashmir, too, faces the same predicament!" His line of argument essentially revolved around this peg that Kashmiris were “resorting to mindless means to achieve a very difficult goal. His two questions: “What have we achieved out of stone-pelting? Has Azadi [freedom] come to us or have UN resolutions on Kashmir gained any new momentum?” The counter question in this case easily could be: “What have we achieved through peaceful political means to achieve our goal? Has Azadi [freedom] come to us or have UN resolutions on Kashmir gained any new momentum through hollow mainstream political sloganeering and vague documents like ‘internal autonomy’, ‘self-rule’ or ‘achievable nationhood’?
Then, I recall the words of noted Indian historian and author Prof. Rajmohan Gandhi who articulated his views on Kashmiri movement during a conference in New Delhi, in December 2010, where I was one of the speakers. Prof. Gandhi said: “If the resistance in Kashmir remains limited to stone-pelting alone, the ‘positive impact’ and the ‘international attention’ for the movement of Kashmiris is likely to continue.” Quite Clearly, Mr. Gandhi [not M K Ganghi!] does not interpret the act of throwing a stone against the symbols of state as a violent act per se. He further added that if stone-throwing too was dropped, and resistance displayed in more dramatic and innovative ways that do not physically injure human beings or destroy property, the “impact of the movement of Kashmiris will probably be multiplied.” Well, the Kashmiris did choose to remain silent in 2011. And it seems they’re following the same course in 2012 as well. In retrospection, they have not achieved anything at all by remaining ‘peaceful’, so to speak!
Worse, the American President Barack Obama’s recent statement on Kashmir was a clear pointer toward the fact that the Uncle Sam has settled to remain silent mainly for economic reasons. Same holds true for all the major members of the European Union who once described Kashmir as a “Beautiful Prison”. Lessons of Political Economy and modern day Global Relations based on the principle of business and profit!
Support or no support from the international community, resistance is the word.
 |
| Gowhar Geelani |
Stone pelting or no stone pelting, the Kashmiris continue to lose hapless Hilals of Bandipora and Aqibs of Shopian to the violence orchestrated by the armed forces, which is according to the prima-facie evidence.
The Kashmiri youth have perchance made a conscious transition from an armed resistance to a peaceful one— the objective of which has primarily been the demand for the right of self-determination. Earlier, the Kashmiris fought with the imported brass on their shoulders and now they are fighting with the 'strength of their argument'. Unfortunately, the state and the vested interest within the armed forces do not seem to be respecting this powerful articulation of the Kashmiris through their words. That is perhaps why there is no let up in the "oppressive policies" and “undemocratic means” to crush dissent. There is no visible sincerity which would at least indicate that the Indian state wants to pave a way for the conflict resolution process. It seems like a diktat that either bow before the mainstream polity or else be prepared to get buried in the unmarked graves!
In light of the above arguments, one which is openly ridiculing ‘peaceful means of resistance’, the second castigating the ‘violent means of resistance’ and the third lying ‘somewhere in between the two’, the challenge before the real intellectual class of Kashmir today is to debate over this dilemma and try to find a way out, not necessarily a compromise or surrender. An honest yet passionate intellectual discourse is the need of the hour, perhaps.
[The writer can be reached at gowhargeelani@gmail.com]
