In 16th century Western Europe, an eternal conflict between church and state is instigated. There is a search for neutral sphere, a sphere that is free of conflict, where there is relative agreement and finally peace is restored. It is 17th century Europe finds a neutral sphere in the form of enlightenment, rationality and universal reasoning. Human beings made rationality as a means to stay with each other. After some period neutral this neutral sphere is found inadequate as this neutral sphere was also found to produce conflict. Europe’s next search for neutral sphere starts in 18th century an age characterized as age of romanticism where humanitarian ethics and morality were supposed to constitute the neutral sphere. Once again the search for neutral sphere is ruptured. In 19th century Carl Schmitt comes with an idea of political. For Schmitt world without war is world without politics, world without politics is world without enmity and world without enmity is without human beings. For Schmitt humans never understood what politics is but what is political. Schmitt’s world is divided into categorical friend and foe. According to Schmitt if you can’t define enemy you cant define self. Everything in world for Schmitt is therefore political. The central idea in the idea of friendship in western thought is based on non instrumental relationship. Schmittian world is based on instrumental relationship. Potentially possibility of having an enemy is infinite. Politics for Schmitt is a matter of conflict and war, and the true criterion of the political is the enemy. Who one’s political friends are is determined only in the encounter with the enemy, and they are valued only insofar as they allow for success in the resulting war. Schmitt’s account of political authority, in particular, rests on an almost Hegelian understanding of the individual’s relation to the community and one’s own mortality. The friend/enemy criterion defines a particular form of life, one in which group identity is valued above physical existence.

This Schmittian world of friend and foe dichotomy has lucid relevance in contemporary era. Despite Schmitt’s position despite of its evident problems, it is superior to various rulers or groups or individuals who have always shied away from  defining their enemies e.g. Bush, Wolfowitz, Modi, MIM , Khomeini , Ashcroft. This is because Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the inhuman; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one’s enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination. The example that I will try to explore is politics of American self assertion after 9/11 in schmittian sense.

“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” . (George W. Bush)

“The war is considered to constitute the absolute last stand of humanity. Such a war is necessarily unusually intense and inhuman because, by transcending the limits of the political framework, it simultaneously degrades the enemy into moral and other categories and is forced to make of him a monster that must not only be repulsed but also utterly destroyed. In other words, he is no longer an enemy who must only be compelled to retreat into his borders”. (Carl Schmitt)

Derrida suggested that a critical reading of Schmitt could help to understand 9/11 and what continues to follow it. Derrida’s concept of suicidal autoimmunity, – ‘that strange behavior where a living being, in quasi-suicidal fashion, ‘itself’ works to destroy its own protection, to immunize itself against its ‘own’ immunity’ – provides a useful perspective on some of the potential consequences of a continuously shifting, pragmatic response to the need for this negatively grounded US identity to continually re-situate itself opposition to others. Derrida referred to the recurring tendency of US foreign policy to base itself on this logic of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ as doubly suicidal.

Here enemy is, was Islam and Islam’s enemy becomes America’s friend. For Schmitt you need to justify your position while defining enemy like America’s War against terrorism. Historically speaking also in schmittian terms Wilson’s aim to expand US authority to a global scale, to make the world safe for democracy’, required the obedience of Congress to send the country to war on the grounds that world peace and democracy needed protecting. Here the problem is not defining enemy your enemy in schmittian sense. America tries not to define enemy directly and justifies its position by demonizing the image of enemy. As Edward Said remarks in his book Orientalism, Palestinian and Islamic men are often portrayed in popular media as dead, dying, or murderous. This trope of the violent Middle-Eastern man perpetuates the idea that Palestinian men will only respond to violent measures.

After 9/11 Bush administration, responded to the attacks in a moralistic and deeply unhelpful manner, calling for a war to rid the world of evil. Here two categories us and them are created, us v/s them. This fits well with Hobbes’s account of sovereignty

“In which the sovereign ‘‘personates’’ the community, and where person plays upon its theatrical roots as the mask that identities a play’s character: a multitude of men, are made One Person, when they are by one man, or one Person, represented. . . . For it is the Unity of the Representer, not the Unity of the Represented, that make the Person One’’ (Hobbes)

We see ourselves in the person who represents us (sovereign power). In America, only the president represents all Americans. As Bush has put it too, either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist’s. Therefore Islam is constructed as antithesis of west. As for Schmitt an enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. In this case Islam represents one collectivity and west other collectivity. The decision the sovereign makes in naming the threat and the enemy is one that declares a state of emergency. Schmitt says “the sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception”

In this sense Bush administration echoes Schmitt’s borderline concept of sovereignty. There are many resemblances of schmittian ideas in his political theology, the concept of the political and Bush administration’s posture since 9/11 like emphasis upon the unity of the community, in America the homeland since September 11, 2001, us and them etc.

inputs by Feroz Rather 

The ongoing commotion in the valley is an embodiment of the fragile nature of Kashmir issue. India’s status quo approach on Kashmir issue is paving the way for disenchantment among the people of Jammu and Kashmir thereby giving rise to unrest in the valley. The land transfer issue which has generated the world wide debate over the contested land of Kashmir need to be disentangled from the approach cultivated by Indian media. Largely the Indian media has portrayed the unrest as ‘clash of faiths’, pitting Hindus of jammu and Muslims of Kashmir against each other . The grand narratives such as Democracy, liberalism have arrived at halt while Indian administration declaring ban on the regional media. The Indian coercive forces have accomplished their task by imposing the curfew, thereby alienating the people of Kashmir from knowing their own state of affairs. The regional reporters are being beaten up on daily basis by Indian security forces. Geelani, Omar Farooq, Yasin Malik and many other leaders have been put under house arrest, curfew has been imposed, shoot at sight has been ordered, people are being beaten up for chanting the slogans of azaadi (Independence). The question that arises is how far the Indian state will go in imposing its will and subjugate the peoples aspiration to see their state as independent one. The people of Kashmir are striving for freedom since one and half century, the first century in fighting against absolutism of Maharaja regime and next half century fighting against Indian oppression.

It was in 1980’s when Kashmiri people started challenging the very legitimacy of Indian rule, led by Jammu and Kashmir liberation front (JKLF) for separate, independent, secular and democratic united Jammu and Kashmir. The deep resentment towards Indian State. increased in the face of rising unemployment,corrupt politics, oppressive nature of Indian state. This forced JKLF to launch its militant movement for independence. The movement was supported unanimously by people of Kashmir and got deeply entrenched into the psyche of Kashmiri middle class. The approach of Delhi has always remained callous towards Kashmir, thus Kashmir was always less free and democratic than rest of India. It was largely the youth of Jammu and Kashmir which showed immense interest in Kashmiri national movement. Kashmiri nationalists stressed a separate ethnic identity called ‘Kashmiriyat’ that consolidates Kashmiris of all religions and ethnic groups. Unfortunately this pro-independence nationalistic fervor was taken over by Jihadi forces backed by Pakistan. The intrusion of Pakistan backed militants into the Kashmir was one of the greatest catastrophe for the Kashmiris and their right for self determination. Through religion, the Jihadi forces seized the opportunity and utilized the religious sentiments of the people. The intrusion of jihadi factor only helped in tarnishing the secular, dovish character of Kashmiris freedom struggle. India began to capitalize over the situation and started demonizing Pakistan, this gave India the legitimacy to carry various attrocities against Kashmiris especially Kashmiri Muslims. India tried to escape from the ground reality by holding Pakistan responsible for the Kashmiri nationalism . While the reality was to solve the Kashmiri issue in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris. Later JKLF lost its sheen when some of its leaders were found flirting with secret agencies of India and Pakistan. At present JKLF is not what it used be in terms of its ideology in 1980’s.

Jagmohan Malhotra, virulent RSS patron, who was the centrally appointed governor took the opportunity in blending nationalism and communalism which led to polarization of the population. Communal disturbances became frequent which till now were unheard of in the valley. The Indian army brutalized the innocent Kashmiris in a manner more severe than the prisoners face in Guantanamo. Women were raped, general civilians were harassed, humiliated and the famous “Crackdown” became the daily phenomenon. This all led deep animosity towards Indian state. It was the time when several anti- Indian slogans were framed by Kashmiris like Bharti kutto wapas Jao ( Indian dogs Go Back) implying the hatred towards the colossal presence of Indian troops installed in Kashmir. This ‘gun’ movement was crushed by the Indian troops with the aid of renegade Ikhwanis . Azaadi still was the favoutite slogan of Kashmiris, which can be emphasized by the fact that even when neighbors fight each other, hum kya chahte Azaadi ( we want freedom), unintentionally slips from their tongue.

After a decade same situation has been arised where Kashmir issue has again garnered international attention. But the present situation differs from the last one in the fact that this time the voice has been raised in the form of peaceful mass protests. The 100 acre land grant to Shri amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) acted merely as a stimulus for Kashmiris, and their continous supression has erupted in the form of volcano. Even the the children are daring to face the ammunition loaded Indian Army personnel as depicted in a picture taken by local journalist. The land was transferred to SASB to set up shelters for Hindu pilgrims. 1980’s despite being period of gun in Kashmir, everything was assured for the safety for the Amarnath Yatris by kashmiri locals. So the protests by kashmiris over the land tranfer has nothing to do with any kind of hatredness towards Hindu Community. It was the love for land and the seduction of nationalism that took the masses to streets.The faith in azaadi came to forefront when kashmiris dared to face the bullets of Indian army resulting death of several proteters. The state government accepted the demands of kashmiris by revoking land transfer.

Communal Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), known for its opportunist character inculcated in the Hindus of jammu a profound sense of insecurity over the State Governments decision by surrendering to demands by Kashmiris. The people of jammu got trapped into BJP’s politics and with support of VHP and Bajrang Dal started protesting in support of the land transfer. The BJP believes in India as a Hindu Rashtra and has no symtapthy for Indian muslims except than Indianizing them. RSS believes that “Hindu coincides with rashtra or nationality and therefore Hindus are automatically true nationals. Members of other religions, if they denied they are indus were also denying they are Indian.” These are the words of Hedgewar, RSS’s first leader. So it is not a problem for Hindus in Jammu to support BJP as they have that previlege of being Hindu.

Economic blockade of the Kashmir Valley was enforced by stopping traffic on national highway, the only route connecting Indian plains to kashmir valley. Two and half districts of jammu caught the eye of media in unprecendented manner and the issue was portrayed as communal , pitting hindus and muslims against each other which is far from true. Separatists, who have the mass support called for a march to Muzaffarabad, in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The economic blockade almost reduced the fruit cultivators of valley to tears as they were unable to export their fruit to other states of India. The current unrest in Kashmir part of valley is the symbolic of emergence of the idea of nationalism. The educated younger generation are the staunch beleivers of the idea called Greater Kashmir ( Indian occupied Jammu and kashmir plus pakistan Occupied Kashmir). People like Syed ali Shah Geelani are ideologically confused who sometimes believe nation as Allah’s Concept and sometimes dream for Kashmir as an islamic state. Geelani has a belief that people of Kashmir believe him because of their belief in Islam. If it would have been the case why it is that Kashmiri people don’t regard Indian Cinema as mediocre or a potent threat to Geelan’s islamic traditions. It is rather the Kashmiris love for their homeland that hepls Geelani to control people in Kashmir. Geelani has a vision of a state which will be based on shariat, islamic law. Geelani has wrong notion when he considers pakistan as Muslims homeland and symbol of islamic state. The idea of Geelani’s pro- Pakistan will never allow to accommodate differences which otherwise is the basic tenet of kashmiri nationalism. There is always a political choice, essential to be exercized and Geelani is a part of that choice. People choose Geelani because he is better choice for kashmiris than India. There is rich tradition of kashmiriyat, a composite cultural identity with glorious traditions of communal amity, tolerance and compassion. The consequences will be devastating if political leaders continue in framing this isuue as communal. Kashmiris always believe in azaadi of kashmir and kashmir’s azaadi doesn’t mean to them la ilaha illalla ( There is no god only allah). Azaadi for kashmiris is the symbolic of the love for freedom, peace and desire for nation called kashmir.

The idea of India in Kashmiris imaginary is abhorrent, non democratic and tyrannical and diabolical nation. India has cunningly tried to invent terrorism links in kashmiris aspiration for azaad Kashmir. The problem lies in the fact that there is mistrust among the people of jammu and Kashmir due to painful experiences experienced by them. Kashmiris confidently define themselves as kashmiris but not Indians. The sacrifices made by kashmiris has not reaped any fruit only because they lack charismatic leaders having proper vision. Kashmiris have always experienced corrupt, insufficient leaders who never empathised with the common peoples aspirations.The responsibilty for reducing kashmir to dangerous location lies only on the shoulders of Pakistan, India, United states and United Nations. The way media is presently portraying Kashmir issue as communal one arised due to land transfer is far from true and strongly needed to be disentagled. The current protests in Kashmir are only the symbolic of the emergence of Kashmiri nationalism and Kashmiris right for self determination.

 “The first semitic religion was Judaism an intolerant faith, then came Christianity, the child of former. That too was equally intolerant. Then came Islam- a long story of ‘Sword and Koran’ written in tears and blood of millions of innocent beings”

( M.S Golwalkar, , Hindu Rashtra and Minorities)

The above lines are taken from Bunch of Thoughts, by M.S Golwalkar, ‘tapasvi’ (sage), ‘man of high character’, ‘embodiment of austerity with an aura of dynamism around’ as defined by India’s “Prime Minister in waiting” Mr. Lal krishna Advani in his memoir ‘My Country My Life’. In his Book Mr. Advani tries to remove the misconceptions and prejudices that has grown over the years around the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in particular. RSS is the focal organization connected with the project of Hindu nationalism (Hindu Rashtra). RSS was founded in 1925 and its first leader was Baligram Hedgewar who was influenced by writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Savarkar excluded Islam from his notion of Hindutva as he considered that Islam carried cultural components that did not fit into Hindus way of life as a collectivity. Mr. Advani advocates the Common people to read ‘non communal’ Golwalkar and then themselves validate the authenticity of this ‘mendacious’ blame. Mr. Advani in his memoir seems to be sorrowful as he considers his master Golwalkar, commonly referred as Shri Guruji by Advani et.al as the victim of vilification Campaign ( the same vilification as faced by V.D Savarkar according to Mr. Advani). Advani was 14 years old when he was for the first time introduced to his destiny called RSS. The man who has been dominating Indian national politics from last 60 years needs to be paid attention when he defends some one, that also the master of his ideology M.S Golwalkar. Advani believes that his master was never communal, instead was a person with ’saintly appearance’ and of secular character. Advani’s Golwalkar aspired for so called Indianization of Indian Muslims, which in Advani’s consideration is secular.

Advani  considers himself involved in every right thing that has happened to India and ardent critique of every other ‘bad’ thing which questioned the very basic credentials of the his Motherland (India). Lets evaluate ’secular’ traits of Advani’s guru by taking the very text written by M.S Golwalkar into consideration.

Conceptualiztion of Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) and Minorities by M.S Golwalkar: According to Golwalkar “the so-called minorities living in India have nothing to lose but everything to gain by the rejuvenation of Hindu Rashtra”. Golwalkar confesses that Secularism as originated in the west has no relevance to India. According to Golwalkar the word secularism is centuries ago concept, while as India’s great book on secularism edited by Rajeev Bhargava ‘Secularisn and its Critics’ claims secularism as a modern concept as the term secularism was coined in 1851 by George jacob Holyake. Golwalkar asserts that the word secular is nowhere to be found in our constitution and foisting of such a word can be termed as interpolation and a superimposition upon the constitution. Golwalkar strongly believe that his narrow nationalist outlook will ultimately help in raising up the nation after absorbing the desirable form. Golwalkar wants the Muslims to be assimilated, digested, absorbed in manner so that they shed their Mohammedan roots. .

Golwalkar gives the reasons why motherland (Hindu Rashtra) is Hindu not Bharatiya or Arya.

 1 ) Why it is not Arya, is because the name Arya has gone out of use especially for the last thousand years. Due to Aryan-Dravidian controversy, “the use of ‘Arya’ would be self-defeating in its purpose of bringing up before our people stretching from Himalayas to Kanyakumari, irrespective of all denominations, past and present.

2) According to Golwalkar there is misconception regarding the word Bharatya. as it is used as a translation of the word ‘Indian’ which includes all the various other communities like the Muslim, christian, parsi, etc, residing in this land. “So the word ‘Bharatya’ too likely to mislead us when we want to denote our particular scociety.

3) Why Hindu?. According to golwalkar “Hindu alone connotes correctly and completely the meaning which we want to convey” . It gives one the constipation by the logic presented by Golwalkar to defend the name ‘Hindu’.

The logic is as,.

“We find the name Sapta-Sindhu in the oldest records of the world-the Rig-Veda itself-as an epithet applied to our land and our people. And its is also well know the syllable ‘S’ in Sanskrit is at times changed to ‘H’ as some of our Prakrit languages and even in European languages” and thus the name Hapta-hindu and then ‘Hindu’ came into currency”

Golwalkar quotes Brihaspati Agama according to whom “the word ‘Hindu’ is formed with the letter ‘Hi’ from the Himalayas and ‘Indu’ from Indu Sarovar (the southern ocean), conveying the entire stretch of our motherland”

Advani’s ’sage’ has deep entrenched antipathy towards Muslims which is defended by Advani by naming it as vilification, misconception, misunderstanding. Advani presented two arguments in his memoir ‘My Country My life’ to prove Golwalkar’s liking towards Muslims. But if Advani would have gone a bit further he would have been trapped into the colossal quandary.

According to Golwalkar “ after the death of Mohammed Pygamber his followers poured out from Arabstan in waves after waves with their swords dripping with blood and overran vast portion as of the globe, trampling under their feet all the various empires that lay in their path—Iran, Egypt, Rome, Europe and all others up to China. The same tides of fanatic fury dashed also against the shores of Hindustan. Our people braved the onslaughts relentlessly for over hundred years and instead of being sucked up, ultimately succeeded in crushing completely the forces of enemy”.

Muslims according to Golwalkar’s are enemies who are foreign, intruders to this land called Hindustan. For Golwalkar the nation consists of five units geography, race, religion, culture and language. This implies itself about the identity and status of India’s Muslim population and other groups like Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists. To this Golwalkar has answer Sikhs and Buddhists are Hindus and thus Indians. Here it becomes important to refer Hedgewar, first leader of RSS

 “ Hindu coincides with rashtra or nationality and therefore Hindus are automatically true nationals. Members of other religions, if they denied they are Hindus were also denying that they were Indians”

According to Golwalkar the serious failure of democracy in independent Hindustan is growing menace of communism. By voting along with Communists in recent, BJP didn’t worried about this menace and happily voted against the UPA government. Golwalkar who earlier refers Christianity as intolerant faith changes his argument and assures that in West it is the Christianity that alone can stem the tide of Communism. Golwalkar says communism takes root only where faith is shattered.

Advani’s book My country My life as reviewed by Praful Bidwai is a launching pad for the next election, exposing Advani’s pettiness which he has inherited from his guru Golwalkar. According to Golwalkar “ Ever Since that evil day, when moslems first landed in Huindustan, right to the present moment, the Hindu nation has been gallantly fighting on to shake off the despoilers ….”

Such is the hate for Muslims in Golwalkar entrenched and Mr. Advani tries to defend him. The problem is solved here, as BJP might try to prove itself as secular in the the form writing memoirs like written by advani, but it is clearly understood that their agenda is to Indianize Muslims of Hindustan.  ndia and ultimtely Hinduize them.The ‘other’ need to be eliminated in order to give proper definition to the ’self’. The other here refers Muslims. My Country My life is desperate attemp by L.K advani to win over the hearts and minds of people to be next prime Minister of India so as to continue the Communal legacy that he has inherited from his gurus like Golwalkar , Savarkar, Rajpal Puri, Shyam prasad Mukherjee.

Cinema is a fascinating subject but Indian cinema popularly known as Bollywood is more so because of the peculiar traits of the people who watch it. Kashmir as a paradise as evoked in films of 1960’s has in some ways carried over into recent films dealing with the Kashmir issue. The historicization of Bollywood’s long Kashmir obsession is thus an exploration of how this obsession fits into the contested political relationship between Kashmir and the Indian Union.
Films of 1960’s made the Kashmir Valley the space for the expression of a new youthful modernity for urban Indians, especially through the technology of color. Pleasures of these films with the formation of a modern Indian subjectivity, contrasts these pleasures with the mounting political tensions within Kashmir.

It was in 1964 that Kashmir Ki Kali (K3) hit the cinemas as a salad of music, romance and drama; garnished with fresh sprigs of the Kashmiri locale. Kashmir is kali was a musical that presented a trip to Srinagar on a couch. The era of color had brought a sort of vibrancy into movies. Outdoors and their natural colors turned into a rage. The white of snow was much beautiful in a color movie than grey and grey movies. So K3 was a treat to the moviegoers with its beautiful Kashmiri locations.

In 1999, it was Kargil War that played a distinctive role in making Kashmir central to the definition Indian national unity. The Kargil episode inspired a first Post Independent India, which had never before stood together, shoulder to shoulder, than it did during and for a short while after the Kargil Episode. Kargil became the USP of film makers. Even though these films didn’t make it big at box office level but they got admiration from all types of people. Advertisement of national pride through films enabled for the first time in 52 years, this nation truly united as one, cutting across all barriers of caste, class, creed, and community.

While Bollywood has long projected Kashmir as the eroticized landscape of the mind in the social imaginary of Indians’ it was Mani Ratnam’s flamboyant narrative of guns and roses – Roja (1992) – that kick-started a reexamination of Bollywood’s complicity with ‘the secret politics of our desires’. Violence and geopolitics have intervened within Kashmir’s cinematic performance and reception. With the emergence of Kashmiri separatism in 1989, the Valley now offers a theatre for a new ‘cinepatriotism’ for the romance of Indo-Pak war rather than the battle of the sexes (Kabir, 2004a).
Although numerous films were made on Kashmir; it is the modicum of films or none of these films that portrayed indigenous cultural space of Kashmir. The celebrated brotherhood between Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims was never tried to be publicized by film makers. It was only in Jagmohan period in Kashmir, the animosity aroused in non-communal Kashmir. The political structures were structured in a manner that led to communal confrontation in the Valley. The people who had lived since centuries harmoniously became the victims of communal politics thus led them to exterminate each other. This phenomenal catastrophe was portrayed in films in enthusiastically without letting people to question the veracity.

In reality it is only 10 bad films that Bollywood has been able to produce on Kashmir after 1990’s. If we analyze these films it makes one clear about how the mainstream media represents Kashmir and Kashmiri people. Almost in most of these films Kashmiri’s are either labeled as terrorists or fundamental Muslim’s whose morals and ethic are pre-modern and doesn’t fit in this western democratic liberal society. There is palpable change in titles itself, how the films related with Kashmir started with titles like Kali, Hena and then transformation of titles to Mission Kashmir, Fannah. The changes in the titles clearly signify the loss of innocence and creation of defective place called Kashmir.

“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin”.

Recently we are experiencing a great sense of exhilaration and excitement on the front pages of all news papers. This whole excitement has produced a vehement amount of attention dominating most of the public discourses. An unprecedented competition has been evoked among the dailies to embellish their leads with mania, what they call Indian Premium League (IPL). There is no doubt about India and its cricketic traditions. Cricket here is parallel to religion. Even lot of scholarship has been already done on the unparalleled impression of cricket on the psyche of Indian masses. Historians like Ramchandra Guha, Boria Majumdar, and Arjun Appadurai, all have attributed all this to peculiar traits of Indian masses. Cricket was introduced by British as a tool for civilizing mission, to civilize the barbarians. This was interpreted in a different way by Indians, importantly as a means for showing superiority over the British. Cricket was no more seen as a sport. People began to look at cricket as a war, the war that was fought by the young sons to save the valor of their mother ( Motherland India). Women were never allowed to join this war as winning the war was the matter of national pride. Cricket over a period arrived at communal tone. Teams were formed on the basis of religion. Even personalities like Jinnah, Nehru showed immense interested in such form of the game. After independence this historical significance of cricket perpetuated with India-Pakistan rivalry.

If Kabir Khan in Shahrukh Khan starred Chak De India puts question mark on the loyalty of the Indian Muslims towards Indian nation, here is Zaid Ahmad Khan (ACP), a true, secular, modern Muslim struggling to prove his credentials of being a loyal citizen towards India. Mukesh Bhatt’s Muzammil Ibrahim starred ‘Dhokha’ or ‘Betrayal’ is the Bollywood’s latest offering that raises several questions about Muslims and their identity in India. Coming for the first time out the rhetoric of his fluffy musicals, Mukesh Bhatt’s Dhokha tries to get to the bottom of delicate question of Hindu-Muslim antagonism. Dhokha displays the actuality of terrorism and its endless costs. As someone has rightly remarked partition is an unending process, beginning of the cultivation of categorical Hindu and Muslim dichotomy, the process that was instigated with partition. After 60 years of partition, there is a continuing dilemma on the subject of Muslims constituting 16% of the total population in a Hindu majoritarian state.                       Muslims in Dhokha are symbolized as misguided, disloyal other worldly communities that have taken other form of living to retaliate namely world celebrated term jihad (holy war). Zaid Ahmad (Muzammil Ibrahim) a true Muslim nationalist, police officer is suspected of his fidelity towards Hindu India. On the night of a lethal bombing at the New Century Club, Mumbai, Zaid helps the horrified victims in the blast. Zaid affirms of donating blood to one of the injured supposed to be a Hindu. The dilemma mounts when the father of the injured repudiates to receive any aid from Zaid as he would like to see his daughter dead rather than letting the blood of a Muslim, a traitor, perfidious creature to flow in his daughters veins. Though the film progressively engages itself in denouncing the people who spread terror in the name of religion and tries to find out reasons for the root cause of terrorism still it doesn’t provide the solution to Islamophobia that’s deeply inculcated into the psyche of general masses. When the media reports about the blast without investigation jihadi group compulsorily is supposed to take the take the responsibility. In an interview with Anti Terrorist Squad head Raj Mehra (Gulshan Grover) it is made clear that Jihadists or Jihadi Sanghathan by referring to Muslims are responsible for the Blast. How often do we   see naxalites being termed as Jihadists? By referring jihad without any inquiry involvement of Muslims becomes necessary. Islam is seen as equivalent of jihad and Muslims as Jihadists thus terrorists as for the mainstream goes. Muslims are shown as community never to be believed, as they can be betray at any instance “yeh qaum Jo hai in ka koi bharosa nahin kabhi bhi kisi ko dhoka desakte hai bloody traitors”.  When Zaid, an honorable police inspector is enquired of his wife’s involvement in the blast, a question that rises in mind is can a Muslim be an Indian?                            

         Zaid till now respected, trendy, dedicated young Indian Muslim abruptly falls in an ambush of proving his dependability as true Muslim Indian police officer. He is typified as person who has a bit commonnality with Arabs “hindi samajh main nahin aati Arbi (Arabic) main samjaoon”. There are two sections of Hindu’s represented in Dhokha. First is the section who believe in Zaid’s innocence despite knowing infidelity of his wife. This section supporting a Muslim is branded as pseudo liberals, pseudo secularists by the opposition. The other group has always remained suspicious of the Muslim loyalty towards India. Their terminology for Muslims appears to be as terrorists, treacherous (jis thali main khate hai usi main chedte hai).         

        At the end even it is shown how the injustices done to person can transform human beings into human bombs. The question that will remain is why only Muslims have to prove their loyalty towards India. There can a bad Hindu, but she/he is never labeled as anti nationalist. Like Hindus, even Muslims have struggled and strived for the independence of India.

Two decades of insurgency have deeply tainted the societal and monetary lives of Kashmiri’s. With the ongoing commotion in the valley the unstable economy has left people with limited employment opportunities. Corruption has led to the failure of all imperative welfare programmes like health, education and employment. Only government jobs have remained the main source of employment for the educated youth          Due to decline of tourism industry and handicraft business, private sector in valley has utterly withered away thus leaving businessmen of the valley in colossal quandary. The low earning capabilities of Kashmiri’s in these circumstances together with the growing demand of jobs have forced thousands of Kashmiri’s to leave their so called paradise and travel to other parts of the country.

                          In the beginning it was Delhi that most of the Kashmiri’s preferred as their subsequent asylum. But due to atrocities carried out by the Delhi police by treating Kashmiri’s as abettors inculcated into the minds of Kashmiri’s a profound sense of insecurity and vulnerability. Mostly Kashmiri Muslims were seen with the suspicious eye by the police and the locals. But despite all this Kashmiri’s in recent have demonstrated their caliber in almost every turf. Earlier Kashmiri’s were thought to be indolent, docile, content, people with no capability of taking risks. But now whole scenario has changed and Kashmiri populace has made their marks in various fields like business, education, science. Recent saying is that India will hound its next decade intellectuals from Kashmir. Kashmiri’s recently have started moving to southern states of India as well where they are experiencing a very different response than what most of Kashmiri’s experienced in Northern states of India. One of such states where Kashmiri’s have recently started inflowing is Andhra Pradesh. In the city of Hyderabad loads of Kashmiri’s have arrived. Most of these Kashmiri’s have either came for business purposes, educational purposes or to settle here by taking several professions in different sectors.

                   Students from Kashmir have secured numerous seats in reputed institutions from last four years. In university of Hyderabad, which is a central government institution declared by University Grants Commission (UGC) as a “university with potential for excellence” about ten students have secured admissions only in last two years.

“It is almost 3000 kilometers that we have traveled all the way from Kashmir only to acquire some cultural capital and to get reformed” says Mushtaq Dar, a student of M.Phil from political science.

                     Hyderabad, the city of Nawabs has to a large extent satisfied the dream of businessmen from Kashmir. Most of the businessmen arrive here in the months of December and January. In January every year all India industrial exhibition is held in Nampally, Hyderabad. Most of the businessmen taking part in the exhibition are from Srinagar. Some of businessmen are coming here from last one decade or two decades to pitch their stalls. Nampally exhibition till now has gratified almost every business community member from Kashmir.

Omar, artificial jewelry shop owner from Kashmir remarks “we are part of this exhibition from last 12 years; we have our customers here who have became like family members for us”.

                          Hyderabad, now one of the most important cities of India has proved to be an employment destination for some section of the Kashmiri’s. Most are recruited in bank sector and IT sectors. Kashmiri’s here have made Hyderabadi Biryani as their intimate friend.

Cinema is a fascinating subject but Indian cinema popularly known as Bollywood is more so because of the peculiar traits of the people who watch it. Bollywood goes deeply into the psyche of the younger generation of Kashmiri youth. Unlike rest of India Kashmir is not privileged with cinemas which after 1989 were burnt due to the rise of major strife in the valley. As the movement itself was directly or indirectly involved in Islamizing the valley, the religious cream of the crop looked at cinemas as a stigma in such a society and mere tools of moral degradation. At present rarely any cinema halls are running in valley, put out of your mind the concept of modern multiplexes. New born if has eager to know practically how theatres look like she/he must has to come out of the valley to fulfill that craving. Frankly speaking it was in the 19^th year of my age when I had for the first time glimpse of how cinema theatres look like. If in this time we even assume of theatres in valley it necessary to take care of assumption. First it is threat from the militant groups, religious leaders then personal security that has to be taken care of. It should not be like any mine being planted in theatre you are watching the movie. But despite all this there is Bollywood wave circulating in the valley.                                            

                           From last one decade it is Bollywood music and Bollywood films have brought the major cultural change in the valley. I will not be exaggerating while saying that the day of Bollywoodized Kashmiri youth start with Bollywood melody and ends with the same. From portable cassette player to cable TV, the dissemination and consumption of Bollywood culture has caused a major transformation in popular culture in Kashmir. The inexpensive sources accessible to common man to get exposed to Bollywood world like music tapes, audio cassettes, pirated compact discs etc. have revitalized local subcultures and community values throughout the valley. Stickers of Bollywood films and stars decorate the autos and buses, posters of film stars adorn the walls of tailors, shops and mechanics, garages. Bollywood films have entered into dialogic construction of Kashmir popular culture by offering youth alternative world.                   

                    The main sources from where Bollywood enters valley are cable TV, music tapes, audio cassettes, pirated compact discs etc. All sources themselves are questionable that is overall different issue.  What is needed here is to question the relation between Bollywood and Kashmir.  How Bollywood and Kashmir look upon each other. How do the people relate these movies, how they reconcile their antagonistic feelings towards the Indian state and nationalism. If we look at the number of films that has been made of Kashmir it comes more or less 10. These films are fine manifestations of representation of Kashmir by Bollywood. Starting from the image of Kashmir as a paradise as evoked in the films of the 60s (Kashmir ki kali), has in some ways carried over into recent films dealing with the Kashmir issue (e.g. Roja, fanaa). Recent trend by looking at films like Roja, fanaa is caricaturing Kashmiri’s as terrorists, un-national, perfidious. But fat reception of Bollywood films by youth of Kashmir raises the question arises how far Hindi films have been successful in soothing their antagonistic feelings towards the Indian state and nationalism with their love of Bollywood.                  

                    Bollywood films are made for a pan Indian audience and the makers of the films are aware of the necessity of constructing a filmic style that crosses both linguistic and cultural boundaries. More specifically these films carry largely message of oneness and strong sense of Indian nationalism. These films make constant reference to classical Indian mythology, folk, drama and literature and Hindu religious practice. Bollywood has now become largely primary part of Kashmiri youth thus proving religious leaders erroneous in their assessment of smoldering theatres in valley so that it can thwart Bollywood from inflowing valley. While on the other side watching Bollywood cinema has made people to compromise their age old customs and traditions of valley. Modernity has made effortless itinerary to Kashmir from last one decade which has made people to satisfy their false needs.