Another poor
defense of freedom
A recently
published article on the magazine Guernica, “Stone Wars”, attempts to present
the horror of a people living under foreign subjugation [1]. Unfortunately, it
lets down those it would serve, by making a few significant errors.
The author
clearly states his role as an observer: “(I did not) throw any stones”.
However, he admits something that makes it hard to retain a good opinion of
him: “I may have handed a couple of small pebbles lying next to me to a
teenager—a stone warrior—who was running short.” The first objection, of course, is to encourage a younger person (a
minor?) to engage in an activity that might possibly rob him of his ability to
get an education or a job, or even cost him his life, while keeping one’s own hands
clean. The writer gets to observe the spectacle, and go back to a
comfortable existence, and write about it, transferring the risk to one of
those he wishes to defend.
The second objection is that the writer insists
that what he supplied consisted of pebbles. Now, pebbles are small stones. But
the author goes further. He supplied “small pebbles”. Small, small stones.
These could not possibly harm anyone, especially if they don’t reach the
intended victims, and said victims have full-on body armor anyway. This act of proclaiming participation, and
moral backing, but only in a way that would allow any court to instantly acquit
the journalist, but not those with whom commiseration is declared, is shabby.
In an earlier draft, perhaps, the author would have surreptitiously disinfected
those small pebbles, and discarded any with rough edges.
A horrible
crime is described. “The bodies had been found on the banks of a gently flowing
stream no more than knee deep, in close proximity to three large Indian
security camps. Why the bodies had struggle wounds, why at least one was found
stark naked—for these questions, the government had no answer.” This appears
damning. How did the courts react, though? The journalist makes no comment on
this. When the executive commits excesses, the courts must step in, and the
press, surely? All we are told, or can infer, is that the crime took place in
May or June, 2009, in an unnamed town close to Anantnag. Perhaps the journalist
does not wish the exact facts (as far as they are easily available in the
public domain) to be studied?
But perhaps
the exact facts do not matter. “In the night, my friend told me, the CRPF goes
into the alleys hurling abuses and beating against the doors of people’s homes.
Occasionally they break into the houses and beat up men, molest women, and loot
valuables.” If that’s true, then injustice is rife, and must be challenged. But our author does not try to delve
further, to ascertain details, to raise a stink, to inform the national and
international press, and the courts. He leaves it as “a friend told me”.
Surely, we may expect more from a journalist? Our author, perhaps as
compensation, gives us a culinary portrait of Kashmir: the article
references “date palms”, “choicest flaky bagirkhanis”, “samovars of
almond kahwa”, “roasted peas and ice-kulfis” and “grilled kabab or a rista”. All this in an article that appears to be about
a subjugated people resisting the oppressor.
There is a
picture accompanying the article. It shows what appear to be two Indian
policemen. No date is suggested, no location is mentioned, and while there are
at least two vehicles in the background, their license plates cannot be read,
for only the two men are in focus. The picture is attributed to another
website, but, there too, we find no identifying information. Surely, we are
past putting in pictures for the sake of
pictures, which may or may not have anything to do with the article?
The author
describes young boys and men throwing stones at the armed aggressors. This
appears to be something every lover of liberty must applaud – as long as no one
gets hurt. That should be quite achievable, for the author suggests:
“…..nor are they (the stones) intended to
injure”
This is a
little incredible. A group of people
throwing stones at another group of people, and not intending to injure them?
Perhaps our author confuses stones with orchids, as far as their effect on
being flung at human tissue is concerned.
However, he
does attempt two strokes in the defense of his thesis: that the soldiers are “always
in full body armor”, and that “Stones are thrown from a distance where the
stone throwers can outpace soldiers if chased, but this necessary distance also
ensures that the stones don’t reach the soldiers”. That sounds plausible,
except that the picture with the two uniformed men shows them with their faces
exposed. And, the author goes on to add,” Mostly, the stones hit no one”. That bit seems to detract from the
too-far-to-hit and have-body-armor-anyway defenses, no pun intended.
Also, the
author permits himself too much adolescent
romanticizing.
“The soldiers are not artists, but part of the
creation itself. If the streets are canvasses where stone pelters perfect their
techniques, soldiers are just olive-colored blotches symbolizing Indian
domination of the region.”
Very
poetic, if it wouldn’t attempt to conceal the fact that the olive-colored
blotches were human beings.
And some naiveté too:
“SOG specializes in torture and killing, and is
loathed by one and all. They show a level of brutality disproportionate to
their puny salaries—it is believed that they are paid 1500 rupees a month, or
around 30 dollars, along with food and lodging for their services….”
Disproportionate?
So, if their salaries were less puny,
then they would be even more brutal? Surely, higher-income levels might be
expected to reduce the desire to wade into a group of “stone-warriors” (yes,
the author so refers to the throwers of stones)?
Of course,
one of the major themes of the conflict is domination and freedom. Alas, our
journalist refrains from presenting a balanced view, in terms of the democratic
process, access to courts, the (nominally?) free media, the historic origin of
the conflict, the religious and ethnic angles to the issue et cetera.
Once again,
Nietzsche: “a poor defense of truth is a disservice to truth”. Or something
similar.
