August 5 now joins the list of anniversaries of colonial violence punctuating "post"-colonial time.
For a people who have witnessed mass killings, mass blindings, mass torturings, mass disappearances, mass incarceration, mass rapes and house demolitions, 5 August was another....
...story to commit to collective memory; not a beginning, not a diversion, not a rupture.
It was continuation of decades of illegitimate exercise of power and yet another totalitarian attack on Kashmiris per se, and this event marked the transition of Kashmir from militarized...
...territory to a proper settler colonial state.
As far as Article 370 is concerned, it was already rendered hollow by successive Indian governments ( Congress and BJP) and by Aug 2019 it was a mere shell and had only the symbolic element.
To put it mildly, its removal was....
...aimed at instilling a sense of permanent psychological defeat in the hearts and minds of the people and was a blow at the Kashmiris' collective sense of pride.
What really made the difference was the scrapping of Article 35A.
The current change to the domicile law....
..facilitate the current influx of civilian and military settlers i.e. leads to ethnic flooding.
Settler-colonial states seek to replace the indigenous people of the land they occupy with some form of ethno-nationalist supremacy.
In the words of scholar Patrick Wolfe, settler..
...colonialism "destroys to replace."
And in Kashmir, the most vigorous August 2019 events that have been taking place have been related to land.
For the Indian state, the norm has always been that 'democracy and morality can wait' when it comes to Kashmir.
The latest betrayal was neither a surprise nor a shock for anyone who is familiar with the history of Kashmir.
Academician Perry Anderson writes in his book that late Professor Balraj Puri, an academic from Jammu was enraged over Sheikh Abdullah's dismissal and detention.
With the aim to register his protest over the issue, he met the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in New Delhi with his earnest trip to Delhi ending in disappointment.
He later noted in his book 'In Kashmir Towards Insurgency' that "Nehru warned me against being too...
...idealistic and asserted that the national interest was more important than democracy".
Anderson corroborates the account. "When an anguished admirer from Jammu pleaded with him [Nehru] not to do so, he replied that the national interest was more important than democracy.
Nehru said:
"We have gambled at the international stage on Kashmir, and we cannot afford to lose. At the moment, we are there at the point of a bayonet. Till things improve, democracy and morality can wait'."
For him, the Kashmiris couldn't be trusted to govern themselves and...
...moral standards was just not applicable for them.
That long wait continues to this day.
Even Nehru, the most liberal head of Indian State thought of the sovereignty of territorial Indian nation State in the same singular fashion as the BJP does today.
In the eyes of most Kashmirs, there is hardly any difference between how the Hindu nationalist BJP is operating in Kashmir at the moment from the way the so-called secular Congress Party has dealt with Kashmir in the past.
Both parties have stripped off Kashmir's autonomy...
...in the name of "national interest", "national security" and "national integration."
Kashmir has always been ruled as a colony where democratic rights were not applicable.
But, it is the culture of resistance that is mainstream in Kashmir and it will outlive its oppression.
Anniversaries like August 5 are a reminder, too: that there was a time before the settler-colonial present. And there will be a future after it too.
Reference: 1. A How to Guide For the Settler Colonial Present: From Canada to Palestine to Kashmir 2. The Indian Ideology
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The accepted wisdom in the United States for the last 75 years has been that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and on Nagasaki three days later was the only way to end the World War II.
Not only did the bombs end the war, the logic goes, they did so in the most...
...humane way possible.
However, the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used — and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it.
The quarter million slained at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not killed to hasten the end of the war against Japan and thereby "save lives", as the subsequent myth has been spread.
The Japanese government was already seeking to surrender before the bomb was dropped.