Feelings from Kashmir Is everything about the concert really apolitical! WORDS WITHIN FIRDOUS SYED The wizards of tyranny have created a very tricky situation: criticize the music concert you are damned; accept it as offshoot of peace, you are still damned. Perhaps “hundreds of crores of rupees” are being spent on a musical extravaganza--- Ehsaas-e-Kashmir. Usually, we are told that music is an expression of love and peace. We may also sense that music can also be orchestrated as a tool of controlling powers. The organisers of four hundred piece orchestra--- the equipment reportedly will be ferried “in dozens of chartered flights from Germany to Srinagar”--- is being described “completely apolitical”. The German ambassador Mr. Steiner while elaborating the reasons behind the planned show has said that “it was decided to hold the concert in the Valley because [w]e think Kashmir deserves recognition for its culture and history”. Obviously German ambassador in his own wisdom has tried to dispel many lurking doubts. And in case the sole motivation for the intended concert is to provide “recognition” to the “culture and history”, we in jubilation may declare: what a kind gesture. What meets the eye , however, is not the real story. This is not the space to dwell in the political belief and background of highly talented and much acclaimed musician Zubin Mehta. Irrespective of his controversial background if Kashmir had been a normal place--- free from any conflict--- we certainly would have been genuinely humbled. In case the great maestro Mr Mehta out of his free choice would have decided to perform in Kashmir. Had Kashmir not been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan and people of Jammu and Kashmir not been engaged since decades in resisting the deep injustices. Would Kashmir still find a place in a very busy itinerary of Zubin Mehta? We leave this question to the good conscience of the music maestro. We the victims of evil designs of power domination--- enduring day in and day out, sufferings and soul stifling indignities only--- are however well-aware of the fact that Kashmir being a disputed region enables it to attract the world attention. Without a conflict in Kashmir, certainly there are thousands of more attractive places in world to earn Mr. Mehta’s expensive attention. Had this not been a fully sponsored event, the exuberant price of the ticket of such a costly show would possibly be beyond the capacity of a man on the street. We may naively believe that Germans and Western societies on the large consist of civilised people. Out of that understanding we could fanaticise that it’s our collective miserable plight, and extreme nature of human rights violations being carried out with greater impunity have compelled our German friends to pay an immediate attention to the most vexed problem of Kashmir. The fantasies however are mere fantasies never to be realized in the real life. Alas it’s not out of any altruistic concern or compassion for the dignity of life that has won us the attention of our German friends, even for a brief period of time. Benevolence has never been the forte of international relations. In pursuance of their business interests with India; the Germans are here only to provide a legal sanctity to deeply contested India’s control over Kashmir. The ploy of innocuous sounding musical gala playing live on the television sets in fifty countries across the world actually is quite sinister. Opposing concert runs us the risk of being labelled as unreasonable and extremist lot. And welcome the international musical event in a disputed region without a murmur, will paint a false picture of all is well in Kashmir. One hopes the German friends do understand the appropriate meaning of “Ehsaas-e-Kashmir”. Obfuscating a reality that very much threatens the extermination of a people, if not physically but surely as a separate cultural and political entity, only brews ill feelings. Whatever the justifications; the aim is to bulldoze the separate Kashmiri cultural identity. How can we welcome such an evil agenda? Of course the idea of peace is sacrosanct. The desire of peace that stems from hearts and minds is more sacred than the life itself. History bears witness to the fact that resisting people have paid monumental sacrifices in search of peace. Yet every peace can never be described as sacrosanct. Forced peace that only serves the wicked interests of controlling powers is no peace at all. Whence a facade of peace brings upon a struggling people only misery and is a cause of overwhelming indignation, shall we still describe this false idea of peace as sacrosanct? Actually peace is only a psychological condition, whereupon conscientious people continue to strive for dignity and honour. And sometimes particularly for the struggling masses resisting oppression is more dignified an act than the life itself. Self-respect and dignity is more sacrosanct than any idea of false peace. Where so-called peace becomes a tool of oppression, resistance and struggle is the only indication of life. A nation can survive in struggle, however without a reasonable modicum of dignity; there is no honour, at all. Is there any value in an undignified life? What’s the significance of life without an honour and self-respect? More often we are confronted with a dilemma; struggle for dignity at what cost. And can peace be sacrificed in pursuance of dignity? Is there a trade-off possible between dignity and peace? Peace is a status of mind not a material construct, is it possible to attain peace without dignity? We are told that: “Peace is pre-requisite to prosperity, and public support to maintain peace is fundamental necessity”. Shall we not tell them that enduring starvation and sufferings in a resistance is more respectable and satisfying a feat than prosperity attained through an enforced peace that eventually is only designed to deny the dignity of life. firdoussyed@yahoo.
Posted on: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:15:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015