The Massacre of Ideas



Pankaj Mishra's essay 'A Massacre Justified By Philanthropy?' is a political essay drenched in western philosophical embellishments. At the onset, it is very difficult to disagree with Mishra about Kashmir and also about the ideological fundamentalism of Indian secular liberals, the phrase that is supposed to confuse most readers. His essay is much worse though as you would require an enormous dose of openness and patience to decipher the essence. Once you do, you can't seem to agree more with his viewpoint.

Let me explain. Mishra talks about military occupation in Kashmir being justified in India, not by Hindutva forces who vehemently argue that Kashmir can't split simply because 'they are Muslims,' but by liberal secular Indians who do not have any alignment with BJP or VHP. These seculars use phrases like Indian identity, democracy, nationalism, etc., to denounce Kashmir’s claim to self-determination. But Mishra's question is this: isn't it as bad to kill people in the name of nationalism as killing in the name of religion or race? Hence secular 'fundamentalism' is equally deplorable as religious 'fundamentalism'.

You get the point. Mishra says the West massacred people using secular ideals and India is repeating the same mistake now. Actually Walter Benjamin, the theorist and German philosopher had views quite similar to this when he talks about nationalists astheticising war. Nevertheless, Mishra's theory differs and makes a lot of sense. Scratch the surface and you will see a different picture.

In the middle of his argument, he liberally throws in generalised ideas which are the viewpoints of the very secular fundamentalists he deplores in the essay. Consider the following paragraph:

'The Kashmiris are hardly alone in failing to detect wisdom and generosity in a state that detains and tortures Muslims on the flimsiest of charges, ignores the killing of Christians, organises mercenary armies against tribals and Maoists, and helps big businessmen to fleece small farmers and uproot the landless.'

All the practices mentioned in the above paragraph take place in India today. But the question is whether these points are sufficient for the argument. The above atrocities are done not just to the religious minorities but even to minorities within Hindu caste hierarchy as well. And the ruthless big businessmen affect every rural dweller. And custodial torture is not plaguing India alone but every developing country affected by terrorism. It even figured in the recent presidential debate in America.

But that is not the point Mishra is trying hard to make here. The arguments in favour of Kashmir's liberation has lost its steam with the onset of Amarnath row. The people of Kashmir have blatantly declared that they are seeking liberation simply because they are religiously different from the rest. They will not allow forty acres of land even temporarily to a Hindu establishment. And they will throw away half million native Hindu Pundits out of the state which should not figure in the question of demography. The flag bearers of Kashmiri Freedom do not have answer to the question of the brazenly communal 'topographical alteration' argument or the question of Pundits. They are not even willing to respond to the question that Kashmir's story did not start with 'military occupation' but with armed unrest by the fringe groups. Mishra naively believes that 'it has never been clear that radical Islam has a sustainable appeal in Kashmir.' Even if that were true, that is not the reason why India wants to retain Kashmir. To rephrase this argument, 'should India 'free' Kashmir because those Muslims are liberal and not fundamentalists? Are we retaining Kashmir to make them liberal minded and secular?

The military occupation is only a reaction and not an action that started the conflict. The conflict was started by Kashmiris. Consider this: If there is a riot in South Extension, police force will be deployed with tear gassing. If the riot continues police will open fire and impose curfew. Curfew will continue until peace is restored. The miscreants cannot use curfew as the excuse for continuing the riots.

That is the state of affairs now and the intellectuals such as Punkaj Mishra use western dialectics to support this. For a long time writers have been inventing one reason after another to try to justify the Kashmir conflict. Tavleen Singh, in her book 'Kashmir: A tragedy of errors' attributes the conflict to Indira Gandhi's faltered political strategies. The democratically elected government was dismissed unconstitutionally by Gandhi and hence the conflict arose. Indira Gandhi did not just dismiss governments in Kashmir but in Tamil Nadu, Andhra and various other states. Actually some of the dismissals were far more unconstitutional than Kashmir's case but those states did not take up to arms in call for liberation.

Europe blundered in their massacres because they were either conducted on their own societies which were peaceful before or in their colonies which were less powerful than them. The military occupation in Kashmir is not such an exercise and nor the 'Idea of India' an abstract dream based on European discourses. If Kashmir is adamant in wanting to go, let them go. But let them not fool themselves or the rest of India by inventing audacious excuses in deriding India's faith in multiculturalism or secular credentials.