Oh! She's very, very wrong

Okay, then. Having already argued that it is her right to say what she wants, and that the sedition law should be removed from the IPC since it violates the fundamental human right to free speech, and that any violence should be covered under other applicable laws, I now get to analyzing what Arundhati Roy said in her so-called seditious speech.

Actually, I don't have a long essay to write here, since a little bit of googling showed that she was very, very wrong when she claimed that Kashmir has never been an integral part of India.

What did I hit upon? The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (yes, there is one, and it was adopted on 17/11/1956), which clearly states:
3. Relationship of the State with the Union of India:-The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.
Quod erat demonstrandumArundhati Roy, may I ask you to please get your facts right?

10 comments:

Subrata Nandi said...

Let us take a brief history of kashmir before 17/11/1956.In october,1947 just after division of India and its independence Nehru said "Hari Singh requested to include Kashmir in India and I did so but later on in consultation with Pakistan and under the supervision of U.N.O kashmir issue will be decided by the Kashmiri people by means of referendum. After 17/11/1956 again Nehru reiterated the same thing saying that "Let us establish peace and tranquility in Kashmir then Kashmiri people will vote to decide" . Unfortunately neither Pakistan nor India took adequate measure.

Kiran Rao Batni said...

But her statement is still incorrect.

ತಿಳಿಗಣ್ಣ said...

" Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir "

What is this?

Do we have constitution of Karnataka? I am confused.

Rohith B R said...

You know when you try to help a handicapped person on the road even when (s)he doesnt seek it, it hurts the sentiment of the person, making him publicly presented as an incapable person. Similarly when the CoI offers special sweet-spots to J&K without being asked for, it obviously makes J&Kians agree to the non-integral part theory. Why was there spontaneous cheer in that function when she used those words?!

I feel this is the sentiment Roy had been rhetorically pointing at when using the words "never been an integral part". Those words may prove her wrong on paper, but what about the issue? That doesn't vanish, does it?

What is an integral part of a nation after all? One which can integrate with the rest of the nation in all ways? Well, that is not the case with J&K today and in the past too. It has always been confined by some unused Section of the CoI making it look very much like a separate entity. If the J&K Constitution mentions the words "integral" does the state then become it? I doubt it.

Kiran Rao Batni said...

> the CoI offers special sweet-spots to J&K without being asked for

Absolutely wrong. Read up.

> Why was there spontaneous cheer in that function when she used those words?!

They probably liked the idea. They have the right to do that, and Arundhati Roy has the right to say that.

> I feel this is the sentiment Roy had been rhetorically
> pointing at when using the words "never been an integral
> part". Those words may prove her wrong on paper, but what
> about the issue? That doesn't vanish, does it?

Nope, she actually says that India (as in the Govt. of India) has itself agreed to Kashmir not being an integral part of India, which is not fact. India's official stance is exactly what the constitution of J&K states. Read this.

The only tangible proof of "being an integral part" is an acknowledgement by the heads of State of J&K and India, which exists in the two constitutions.

The erstwhile princely state of Mysore ceded to the Union of India by an instrument of accession signed by the Maharaja of Mysore. Nobody asked the common man anything about it. That document and the constitution of India are the only tangible proofs that Mysore is an integral part of India from the date on which the Maharaja signed the document.

If anyone claims that Mysore was never an integral part of India, that claim is incorrect starting from the date on the above two documents (or of amendments therein).

Now, emotional integration of a majority of people (if not all the people) is a different ballgame, and is an ongoing process. That requires a lot of give and take, and a democratic process. If democratic dialogue breaks down, emotional integration is difficult.

> If the J&K Constitution mentions the words "integral" does the state then become it?

Yes. For want of a better instrument. Of course this doesn't imply emotional integration, but only political integration.

Roy should have clarified that she means emotional integration, if that is what she meant. But her words don't imply only that. She explicitly refers to politics, where she certainly has her facts wrong.

Kiran Rao Batni said...

ತಿಳಿಗಣ್ಣ,

Wake up!

Rohith B R said...

Kiran, which is the absolutely wrong part? That J&K is offered sweet-spots by CoI or that they weren't asked for by J&K? The former is evident in the various Sections of the CoI that are littered with the caveat "except the state of Jammu and Kashmir". I may be wrong about the latter, but what kind of people will "ask" to be treated like that by a constitution?

Lets look at the introduction in IPC itself:
"1. Title and extent of operation of the Code.--This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall 3*[extend to the whole of India 4*[except the State of Jammu and Kashmir]]."

I am not contesting Roy's innocence or intentional wrong-doing here - she might have had tens of other reasons behind saying all that she said. Considering that she'd have done this much home work for sure, emotional integration was most likely her intended phrase and not political integration. The former is what made her audience roar in consent, not the latter.

Kiran Rao Batni said...

> which is the absolutely wrong part?

That J&K did not ask for special status.

> What kind of people will "ask" to be treated like that by a constitution?

Normal people.

> emotional integration was most likely her intended phrase
> and not political integration

From her speech, and from the political solutions that the entire conference discussed, I don't think so.

> The former is what made her audience roar in consent, not
> the latter

From the little I know about crowds, I don't think so.

Anyway, I don't want to prolong this discussion about J&K. My only point is that we can disagree with people (and that too, not necessarily entirely) without asking them to be put behind bars.

ತಿಳಿಗಣ್ಣ said...

I have been awake.
I still don't get what is "Constitution of J&K"?

Anyhow...

Arundhati roy will win a nobel prize shortly. And India will not attend the ceremony :D

Thirumalai said...

Please visit http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130909941. The article highlights the right of Kashmiris in expressing their feeling of dissatisfaction with Indian Government. Is it right for the Indian Government to keep 7,00,000 security personnel stationed in the region where there are less than 500 militants active?

Post a Comment

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...