Concert in Srinagar, Kashmir stirs controversy.

[chandrashekhar_azad]

A few weeks ago, a concert was held in Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir, which is currently Indian occupied territory. For those unaware, the territory of Kashmir has been under dispute by both Pakistan and India for several decades now. Kashmiri separatists have been fighting for succession from both nations which have claims of their territory. The concert was arranged by the Indian government with the assistance of the German embassy in India, featuring highly-acclaimed classical maestro Zubin Mehta as the conductor of the Bavarian State Orchestra. The concert was entitled Ehsaan-e-Kashmir, or "feel of Kashmir" This event, however, was an invitation-only event, and those invited were mostly well-to-do individuals, few of which were actually Kashmiri people themselves. It was an extremely bourgeois, pro-India event, which wanted to embrace the supposed prosperity of Kashmir, but it was contrarily very hypocritical of the Indian government as the people of Kashmir are one of the most oppressed groups in South Asia today, living under harsh conditions with little aid from the governments of Pakistan or India, and being kept under constant military surveillance.

Some sources of insight regarding the situation (I apologize that these aren't hyperlinks, but I'm unable to link them directly as I need to have 25 or more posts.):

The concert itself:
youtube. com/watch?v=nqRQN7Ukik0

An article with reactions from Kashmiris about the event:
latimes. com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kashmir-zubin-mehta-dueling-concerts-20130906,0,4273426.story

CNN India's report followed by discourse about the concert:
youtube. com/watch?v=NCpJAdwiFh4

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

The Indian occupation of Kashmir is very brutal, indeed, and concerts that glorify Indian culture in the middle of occupied territory is certainly unacceptable.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The Indian occupation of Kashmir is very brutal, indeed

indeed


and concerts that glorify Indian culture in the middle of occupied territory is certainly unacceptable.ok this is a confused statement. Indian nationalism is bad, but I don't know how you differentiate "Indian culture" from "Kashmiri culture" or value one as having more inherent right to practice one over the other in some place. Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims alike, as well as Sikhs have lived in Kashmir for centuries or millennia depending on the faith, and they still do. The issue isn't whether Kashmir is or is not "culturally" a part of India. It's with the military occupation. Pro-Independence Kashmiris don't want secession from "Indian culture" but from "India" the modern nation state founded in the 40s out of the rump of the Raj.

Also, I may be confused, but you say you're a Luxemborgist, right? how then would you solve the Kashmir crisis? By supporting a nationalist succession or by supporting a Socialist revolution in India and Pakistan?

[NoXiOuScRaSh]

The Indian occupation of Kashmir is very brutal, indeed, and concerts that glorify Indian culture in the middle of occupied territory is certainly unacceptable.

Although this statement may seemed to be confused in theory could be correct. Although culturally speaking the people of Kashmir are of the Indian culture the military occupation is a problem and if as a people they want to secede from the Indian government and want to become independent then as a people they will be creating a completely new government which by extension will create the foundations for a new culture.

Once you accept this Cultural birth into the situation you can see how it then becomes an attack not on the current culture but a future culture that may become the new one if a Kashmiri Nationalist Succession were to take place, I don't believe a socialist revolution of the region is at this point a possibility but the progression to such a revolution could be made through a nationalist Succession, provided of course that they were to survive as a independent nation from the obvious possibility of military interventions into this political process, or that such an intervention would even take place.

But either way you look it this really does have controversial political implications on all sides.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't think borders correspond with cultural differences. This is even more the case in areas with a lot of localized diversity mixed with a history of cultural intermingling, like the Indian subcontinent.

[NoXiOuScRaSh]

I don't think borders correspond with cultural differences. This is even more the case in areas with a lot of localized diversity mixed with a history of cultural intermingling, like the Indian subcontinent.

you are right for the most part but there are places where borders and past cultural intermingling are still able to divide from one another take north America for example, I am Canadian and we along with Americans have a long history of cultural intermingling before the American Revolution and yet one could say we now form two distinct nations with distinct cultural backgrounds because of the simple decision made for Independence as a singular nation.

Although Canada didn't receive Independence in the same way we still gained sovereignty within the Commonwealth and this created an even greater divide in cultural Identity, needless to say Americans and Canadians don't call themselves British simply because they have a history of a British Cultural Identity, this at the very least proves that you can't deny that a division in cultural morality and identity can occur and if this Nationalist Succession does go through it is more than likely no matter the length of the process. I would agree that most people in Kashmir may not see the cultural possibility of an identity division but that doesn't mean those that want this to occur wouldn't be offended by what seems to amount to a public pro-India support concert which could be considered an attempt to subvert possibility of Independence and to support Reunification.

Just because you can't see the small advances made in a political battle doesn't mean (metaphorically speaking at least) people aren't cleaning their rifles.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I disagree, I think it's more complicated. For instance, First Nations tribes members in Mexico and America or America and Canada can have more in common with each other than either have with their white neighbors. People from Seattle have more in common with those in Vancouver than they have with those in Kentucky.

This is even more the case in Kashmir (where incidentally not even every ethnic group is pro-independence). The Hindus in Jammu, the Hindu Pandits in Kashmir and Buddhists in Ladakh are not exactly jumping at the idea of Kashmiri secession the way the Muslim majority is. We must remember that Kashmir was a kingdom forged by a Maharaja with an army, not some kind of idealized "nation-state" founded around some nominally unified ethnic-linguistic area. What we see with all of these nationalist narratives is the attempt to force a common narrative on everyone, including those minorities who do not identify with it. We see that with India and Pakistan forcing their sense of common identity on Muslim Kashmiris, and we would see Muslim Kasmiris doing this on Jammu and Ladakh. If Jammu and Ladakh gained independence, they would then be imposing their common narrative on the ethnic minorities where they live.

The problem with social and political struggle in the Indian subcontinent since the coming of the British was that it contributed to a sense of nationalist division between Hindus and Muslims (and Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka, and Buddhists and Muslims in Burma), and between the center and regions. Additionally, there has been the push by religious or cultural purists to violently impose their culture on the periphery, such as the Sunni extremists in Pakistan attacking Shiites, Hindus and Christians. This has been incredibly destructive and counterproductive, and has weakened the possibility for developing a transnational worker's movement to challenge the power of the state and capital. The most violent militias are often operating with a dangerous supremacist ideology and are happy to kill and terrorize the racial and ethnic members of the other, as in Yugoslavia. The Indian government has been violent and oppressive towards the Kashmiris, and Kashmir has as much a right to national secession as India did, but I don't think that the focus on struggle for regional secession will fix the problems so much as hinder the possibility for developing real solidarity.