Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Spirit of resilience(?) and Mr. Kasuri's audacity

Salaam Bombay. The way the city got its act together after the terrorist attack is inspiring. But however we may want to look at it, Mumbaikars spirit of resilience is basically driven by a need to get on with life since they cannot afford to do otherwise.

Mr. Kasuri's statement linking the Mumbai blasts and the Kashmir dispute sounds innocuously matter-of-fact, but it is far from ingenuous; not from him and definitely not at this juncture. Removing the diplomatic niceties, in political terms, it simply says 'see, if India wants this stopped, it has to come over to the negotiating table on Kashmir'. 'This kind of incidents can make India address things India doesnt want to address' This point is painfully close to the truth, but this hint from Mr. Kasuri on how to respond to a terrorist attack is closer to thuggery than the high office he holds.

Things like these cast dark clouds on otherwise well intentioned peace talks. India would not want to seem pressurised into peace talks, which will put the other side at an advantage in negotiations. But there are enough people within the Pakistani establishment to whom valid motives can be ascribed for overthrowing peace talks.

A more significant challenge would be to stop the stupidity of right wing extremist reaction to these incidents from within India itself. I wonder if the word 'Shiv Sainiks' has been coined cleverly to derive some divine legitimacy to their actions from the public. If it is Congress-'men' and DMK-'cadres' why not Shiv Sena-'members' ? Sainik is a revered word; not to be appropriated for lending legitimacy to right wing extremist purposes.


Vishal said...

Personally, I don't think that resolving Kashmir will prevent such attacks in future. The "terrorists" will find other causes to kill people.

Gokulakrishnan S said...

@vishal: cudnt read that article, no access. But like you said, Amartya Sen also says in his 'Argumentative Indian' that violence is based on class divisions (economic) and not communal divisions (which is the standard reason given for Kashmiri militancy). Shifting the thesis across national boundaries, this statement means that glaring class divisons between countries will take a communal face for manifestation as violence.

With globalisation, where the gulf between classes grow wider, this indicates the inevitable rise of communal terrorism or Islamic terrorism

mishi said...

Its easy to add political and communal color to what happened in Mumbai. What we are not addressing is the deep faith the fundamentalists have in what they are doing. It is this faith which has to be broken, and that's the only way to a better tomorrow.

Diplomacy between India and Pak may have to wait on this, and so can Kashmir, whats more important is to bring the fundamentalist to the table and create an atmosphere of trust. I'd agree with the comment above, Kashmir is not a solution to end terrorism.