There is a girl. She was wed as a child into a much richer household that promised to take care of her as their own. She was reluctant. So was her guardian, but he chose to marry her off, hoping for the best. Her consent was not sought. As she demurred quietly and then loudly, her new family said they would ask her consent again, later when she was older, wiser, knew them enough (they hoped that she loved them enough) to take the decision (they hoped it was the 'right' one and she would choose them). They knew she was an asset to them. She would be an asset to anyone. She had many riches untapped, unexplored. She would be the envy of the world as a gem in their crown. They looked forward to polishing her.
They paid for her education and her food. She created some resources for herself, but it was not enough to sustain her. They allowed her to stay on in her home town (not that she was going to be a willing resident of theirs if they had pushed, anyway). They also paid for guards to protect her. Well they said protect, she said restrict. You get the point. She grew into a slightly difficult person with more contradictions and complexities than most.
She had a rental. It was more like a hovel to many others, but to her it was her kingdom. She had to share it with others and she cleverly ousted a few from the place supposedly to make more room for herself. The family heard of this and protested. Said she was unwilling to settle in the HUGE mansion they had saying she wanted a small place and then obviously was showing off her aspirations for a larger place. Why did she not join them? Together they could be happy. She again objected. She said she was sure they were not bad, but she was not sure that they were good for her.
She would rather severe ties if they needed her to stay in the family mansion. She was happy with her hovel. She would carry their name, but she wanted to lead her own life. Without their interference.
She had friends. Some friends the family did not like and they curtailed her friendships. She accepted the limitations with some reluctance. She was not sure the family was not right. But she resented being told what to do.
Periodically, there were talks between her and the family. They insisted she belonged with them in their space, she resisted the inclusion. She termed it intrusion. She had ambitions. The family said they could help her fulfill them. She wanted, oh how she yearned! But she was afraid of being stripped of her identity. She saw the family as good to many. But she also saw how they treated the disobedient within them. The ones with contrary opinions who voiced them vociferously. She had so many, many such contrary opinions. And she did not want to be beaten up. She came to think 'help' was a 'bribe' to get her to accept the family. She was not sure the family would stay that good to her once she became theirs wholly. She wanted to retain her semi-independence.
Now the family was getting impatient. They had waited years. They had expended resources on her. They had shown how tolerant they were, how broadminded. But she just was not seeing. She refused to see.
They decided she had to be made to see. They took over her rental agreement. They took her passport away. They blocked her bank accounts. They took away her cell phone. They ensured she had no resource she could tap into. They locked her down and then told her you are ours. We have done so much for you, high time you learnt your place. We will do well by you, but you need to live by our terms. Learn to accept. Rejoice.
The story ends here for now. It is for each of us to decide if the family or the girl are in the wrong or in the right. What would you do if you were that girl? What would have been your advise to the family?
What if the girl's name were Kashmir? Does your answer change?
— Written on 11 August 2019.
— My post on 'At Crossroads' led to some debate on FB in public and much more on private chats and messages. My post was also tagged as 'against community standards'. :) Some threatening messages of how I need to lose my Indian citizenship and perhaps I am a Pakistani at heart also followed. All on messenger or DMs rather than on the public posts.
It led me to question why is it that we do not want to hear a contrary opinion? I reread How to Get Power on TED Ideas and the idea of story stuck me anew. This story had already been brewing in my mind as a metaphor. But now I decided to not just let it roam the empty hallways in my mind and pen it down. Hence this post.
Posts
5 comments:
Quite thought provoking. But does the metaphor stand good, the right of an individual to decide the course of her life and a whole state which is made a hub of terrorism and forced to lag behind as compared to other parts of the country in the name of special status? Is it really the opinion of the majority in full awareness of their situation , past, present and future, or just an emotion mislead by certain forces and exaggeration of facts and and only a few voices seizing the mikes and suppressing lakh of voices that long for peace and development and not interested any politics? Where do Kashmiri pandits who lost homes to the SPECIAL STATUS get representation on the story?
If pandits are 'others' with whom the girl Kashmir had to share room, it implies they are not Kashmiris, which is not just debatable but challenges the same human concerns the story tries to uphold.
But then does another wrong make the earlier wrong, right? I did say she is flawed. She did throw out people,no doubt.
That was not the intention. The point was the current Kashmiris 'rented' land as much as the 'Kashmiri pandits' did. No one owns land. It is a trust we maintain for the future generations. It was wrong. And we do in all our talks talk of Kashmiri Pandits as distinct from the current residents of Kashmir. So distinguish them was the point.
While these points are valid Vasavi, the metaphor was consciously selected. Would the whole Kashmir want to be a part of India? While there is terrorism there, the terror the people face from the Indian Army is also indisputable. The whole state is not as undeveloped as one might think. Kashmir performs well on education parameters despite all the many school shut downs and the communication embargoes placed often by the Indian government.
And just as often a girl is told it is her desire against the betterment of a family, so too here we hear this one state's select wishes against the 'larger good'.
Many want development, yes. Does that have to be through this suppression? If that is the cost one bears for development, does one want it? That is my question. Do we even hear Kashmiri voices?
Telangana was carved out of AP because you felt your identify was not represented by the regime. Earlier most of South was called the Madras presidency. Let us not kid ourselves that development is enough. The will of the people matters more. There are many in TS who cared not if they were a part of AP or not. There are many who yearn still for the whole Andhra. There are still many more Andhraites who feel disenfranchised in the process. There are many in TS who are proud of their new identity. Identity is self formed. It cannot be imposed.
And while I type this, I am ever conscious that the Kashmir Communication Blackout continues to be. It has been months now. If the people, as you say, are so happy and the 'corrupt' leaders have been imprisoned, why then this sustained blackout?
Post a Comment