Articles on the Amarnath Land Row

Kashmir: The State Cultivation of the Amarnath Yatra

by Gautam Navlakha

Imagine if a Muslim governor of Rajasthan were to ask to set up an independent Ajmer Sharief Dargah development authority, with say, control over a large part of Ajmer city. What would be the response of Rajasthan's BJP government or the right wing Hindutva rabble-rousers?

...

Significantly, even the Bharatiya Janata Party in Uttarakhand on May 1, 2008 limited the number of pilgrims visiting Gangotri and Goumukh to 150 persons per day so as to protect the fragile ecology of the area. Yet, in the case of Amarnath, and despite overwhelming evidence of environmental degradation posed by the huge increase in the number of pilgrims and large number of security forces deployed for protection of such pilgrims, there is no one who dares challenge the SASB's stubborn extension of the yatra. Indeed if the CEO of SASB is to be believed since "the population of India will increase we will have to consider further extension of the yatra period".

(read the rest here: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/navlakha080808.html)

How some faith based land claims are more equal than others

Nothing infuriates people more than double standards and indeed, this is something the BJP constantly plays upon with its accusations of "pseudo-secularism" and "Muslim appeasement". Yet, in at least two recent instances involving religious sites in different corners of the continent – Amarnath in Kashmir and the 'Ram setu' in the south – the appeasement of Hindutva forces at the expense of everything else, including actual Hindu sentiment, is glaring. The mainstream media does it, the political parties do it, and sad to say, the security forces are doing it, with one army officer allegedly saying they could not fire upon protestors chanting 'pro-India' slogans, even as they uprooted rail tracks and smashed public property. Alas, no such qualms were displayed when it came to Kashmiri fruit sellers defying an illegitimate blockade or even wounded people in ambulances. Evidently, all one has to do while abusing the law is wave the national flag, never mind that in doing so one is cheapening the flag itself.

…

It is also instructive to compare Amarnath with the Niyamgiri hills in Orissa, where a faith-based land claim – this time by adivasis and not caste Hindus – has been casually brushed aside by everyone from politicians, to the courts and the media.

(read the rest here:http://gyanoprobha.typepad.com/gyanoprobha/2008/08/how-some-faith-based-land-claims-are-more-equal-than-others.html)

Need to rethink our Kashmir policy

The ongoing turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir is unprecedented in its intensity and mass appeal, and has the potential to recast the State’s existing political realities as well as force a rethink of India’s traditional lines on the Kashmir problem and most certainly give way to newer political realities when all is said and done.

While comparisons are rightly made between the current turmoil in the State and the situation in the early 1990s (minus the militancy), what needs to be noted is that despite all the efforts by the Indian state (and use of all sorts of measures ranging from force to negotiations with the separatists) in the last two decades or so, the dislike, let us face it, that a large number of Kashmiris express for India is real and there for everybody to see. It doesn’t help any more to comfort ourselves by saying that this is only an urban phenomenon in downtown Srinagar and not all Kashmiris share this sentiment. The anti-India agitations in Kashmir have given us, as a nation, an opportunity to introspect on some of our policies towards Kashmir.

(read the rest here:http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/22/stories/2008082254791000.htm)

An immoral and illegal accord
by A.G Noorani

The accord between the J&K Government and the Shri Amarnathji Yatra Sangharsh Samity (SAYSS) on 31 August 2008 is far worse than the order by the J&K Government only three months earlier on 26 May 2008. It grants the SASS concessions beyond what the order did. It is one-sided and marks an abject surrender to violence, blockade and to communal forces. The differences between the order and accord are glaring.

[read the rest here: http://www.countercurrents.org/noorani030908.htm]