One of my post on this blog I talk of the tale of Kashmir. The tragedy of Kashmir I have often realized is the adamancy on either side to paint it as an insipid simplicity. A blog ( http://kashmir.wordpress.com/2006/06/10/fanaa-amir-and-kashmir/#comments ) on world press which reviews Fanaa from a Kashmiri Perspective now being circulated on facebook makes me write further on the inclination to overlook the key issues on Kashmir.
The blog states that the one of the protagonists took a bus from UdhamSingh Nagar to Delhi, which Kashmiris almost never do, as “The most convenient route is by bus to Jammu and onwards to Delhi.” And thus the writer draws the conclusion that Indians know so little about Kashmir that even their high budget films cannot deliver facts. For once it’s characteristic of the Indian films to muddle up geography, exceptionally here Kashmir is no exception to the rule that applies to the entire nation, additionally there is a road link between UdhamSingh Nagar and Delhi and thus the possibility of taking the road remains a point which our writer does concede. The point that I am trying to underpin is that while there seems to be an obvious discrepancy in the story telling but it is not something to cry foul over. I have repeatedly realized that many times India understands too little of Kashmir, but the fault for this must lie on both sides, while the apathy of Indians is apparent to all kashmiris, It is not strange for the population of the country to be a uninformed about and understand even less the pathos of the plebian who wish to impose passes on Indians coming to the valley, very often I am surprised by a Kashmiri telling me “Your country doesn’t care for us.” The complaint is an indictment of the Newspaper reading Indian who takes the good and the bad news from Kashmir far too casually, but it also is euphemistic method of stating that you don’t want us but our land.
The strangest argument was how the Kashmiri girl pronounces Srinagar in the movie, the writer obviously far to obsessed with his (pardon the mistake with gender if any as the writer chooses to be anonymous as ~K) restricted idea of Kashmir ponders “….[she] pronounc[es]ing Srinagar as Shrinagar, as most Indians do, but no Kashmiri ever will. It is Srinagar, not Shri Nagar.” The name Srinagar comes from the Sanskrit words Sri and Nagar which means the city of wealth or the city of goddess Lakshmi, in fact Sri in Sanskrit and contemporary Languages is pronounced as “SHRI”, this adamancy as recognising someone as Kashmiri only when the person technically mispronounces the capital city is similar to the resolute stand of calling Anantnag as Islamabad and overlooking a history that played equally important role in shaping the pride called Kashmiriyat.
The third error in the rendition by ~K further strengthens the belief that the unwillingness to look at the other side of the story, he eloquently writes “she quotes the famous words of Emperor Jehangir: ‘If there is a Paradise on earth, it is here [Kashmir], it is here, it is here.’ But, [She] attributes these words to Shehjehan. It sounds so stupid when movies with huge budgets make such silly mistakes.” Truly Jahaangeer then the emperor of India, who used to travel to Kashmir (a part of his empire) in the summers was so mesmerized by the beauty of the valley that he did say so In fact Shah Jahaan used the same words and the context was not Kashmir but TajMahal. So one never know’s whether the error was attributing words to Shah Jahaan or in replacing TajMahal by bracketed Kashmir. I would not dive this low in argument had the self serving writer not gone on to claim “It sure is not true for entire India. Organised killings like the ones in Gujrat don't take place in a paradise.” After years of unrest, and millions displaced I still consider Kashmir paradise enough and do not see any reason for anyone inside or outside the country to teach us lessons on co-existence and harmony, especially when the person who preaches believes that every political decision that the fellow Kashmiris on the other side of the border take would be dictated by the hegemony of the religion based Head-Counts and makes the unguarded, unveiled remark like “There are 99% Muslims in Azad Kashmir and I am sure they don’t want to become a minority in India and become become prey to a Gujarat like riots.” that proponents of such ideas actually talk of Gujrat riots with a holier than though attitude baffles the common sense of the common Indian. I will not argue about the minority rights in our adjoining world, but this hypothesis suggests a dangerous inclination of the ~K who claims to represent Kashmir and Kashmiriyat. For an average Indian this is an insinuation of a Kashmiri movement that relies, gets inspired and is driven by the desire to be a part of a land where people of certain faith can wield majority.
The unbridled imaginations let loose by an innocuous movie seems to suggest the unique history and culture that Kashmiris harp about in their attempt to distinguish themselves from India is a projection of the fear of being the minority. I need some right minded Kashmiri to tell me what historically differs Kashmir from India, is the History that you talk about is the history of 1947 or that of Jehangir or the Mauryans or even earlier that of the Pandvas and Kashyaps.
And to the countryman who says “Salman Rushdie created the Clown of Shalimar Salman Rushdie did not create the Clown of Shalimar, but Shalimar the Clown, and no Gandhi ever wrote the Ghosts of Kashmir, it was Shankar Vedantam who authored a compilation of short stories from Kashmir. At least get your facts right before propagating stories about Indian Secularism.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment