Knowing the consequences of menace like stone pelting (which ironically finds some defenders far away from where it actually happens) he should sure have refrained from making it a point of discussion: Ajaz-ul-Haq in GK
Naseer A Ganai
In Kashmir a new argument is gaining ground. The argument is that those who are not at the ground zero have no right to talk about what is going on at the ground zero. Either they have to be part of the happenings or they should keep their mouth shut. The language is clear. Come and pelt stones if you are defending them from far away or be silent. You do not know its consequences.
Interestingly only the phenomenon of stone pelting is what this discourse is being applied and repeatedly applied upon.
If the same logic is applied to other countries and other conflict areas then Jews living in Russia, United States of America or in Eastern Europe should not talk about the state of Israel at all. They have no right to talk about the policies of Israel as they did not migrate to Israel. They have no right to discuss and lobby for the policies of Israeli State in the United States of America and other places. If they care for Israel they have to be in Israel or else they should maintain silence.
The same way, Palestinians living in exile in Jordon, Syria, Egypt for past five decades should just keep mum and should not talk about Palestinian cause. Why they left Palestine in the first place. They should not have. They should have remained in Gaza. No person who is not in Gaza should write and talk about Palestine. No one should pen some lines in support of Palestine from New York. How can they? They are in New York and Palestine is Middle East. How could they feel pain of Palestine while living in New York!
The Non Resident Indians should not talk about politics in India. They are not on the ground zero. They are in cozy houses in much securer United State of America. They cannot understand pain and agony of Indian masses. They cannot understand poverty. And their theories would not mitigate the pain of common Indians. The money they send to mother country does not matter.
Many more examples could be cited. Afghans who for past three decades are living as refugees in Pakistan and Iran have no right to talk about what has befallen their motherland. They should not be part of the debate about present happenings in Afghanistan and its future. And why should they. They were the people who fled away when Russian tanks entered Kabul three decades ago. They were the first to leave in 2001 when George Bush declared war on Afghanistan with the war bugle of "either be with us or you are against us". Only those have the right to talk about Afghanistan, who are in Helmand, Kabul and Kandhar. Rest have no business there. Is it necessary for an Afghan to be in Kabul to talk about Kabul? Is it necessary to be politician to talk about politics? Is it indispensable to be a militant to talk about militancy? Is it necessary to be a cop to talk about police? Writers rip institutions apart, they devour politicians with their writings, they make mockery of leaders still they never have been part of the politics. Can you isolate stone pelting or militancy or presence of armed forces or armed forces special powers act from politics? They are part of Jammu and Kashmir’s six decades long politics. You cannot isolate them from politics of Jammu and Kashmir. You cannot isolate stone pelting and condone a person who is against it and condemn the one who is for it on the criterion of distance of the speaker from the ground zero. That is no criterion to judge the argument.
If you do not have argument to counter the argument, then you should talk about something else. Instead of passing a judgment that you cannot write about the ground zero while being far away from it.
Accept the reality that you do not have an argument instead of denying one the right to write about his mother place. Those people who have been out of Kashmir have always been part of this society and this place. They equally feel pain of Kashmir as you and I who are here in the thick of things. Do not deny them the right of being Kashmiris. They have equal right to talk about the things happening in Kashmir as you and I have. We must learn to debate and argue on the basis of arguments rather than measuring the distance from which a speaker is speaking. Scores of intellectuals in New Delhi, Kolkotta, and Chennai talk and write about Kashmir. They are not Kashmiris. Still they have been vociferous about the Kashmir cause. But instead of appreciating their argument or condemning their argument, we have started a different exercise. That is to see what they select for their children and where their wards study. If this is the level of our debate then God save us. Yes we have every right to question articles and write ups but we have no right to condemn people on the pretext of their present address and school address of their children.