Note: Amaa Bu is an anonymous Kargili, active on social media.
In his recent response Amaa Bu had pointed out two key points as a hurdle in the peace process between IKMT and ISK. Firstly, he said that despite of being Various similarities in religion, rituals, language, identity, ethnicity and innumerable other things, there are some key differences in terms of ideology between the two organisations. More exactly he said that differences are in interpretation of things, that are similar in outlook. Secondly, he questioned the cause for unity. Why Unity for materialistic benefits rather than for a greater cause like ideology or religion. I partially agree with the former and totally agree with the later.
Let me explain.
Firstly, in first friendly quarrel with Amaa Bu I would say that we have more similarities than differences. We have more point for agreement than points for contention.
Secondly, you said that those differences could understand only by few people, let’s say the intellectual class. My point is, why we need to fight over a point that we don’t understand? To solve such issues there should be discourse between clerics of both the organisation who have understanding of those differences. Moreover, these issues are differences of opinion which must be confined to opinion. It should not lead us to antagonist relations.
Thirdly, Interpretation is different by different scholars even for Quran and traditions of the infallibles. It is the beauty of Quran, traditions and the religion that give different lesson to different people according to his capacity to catch. But I don’t deny that there are elements who deliberately misinterpret Quran and tradition for their interest. But this is (potentially) not true in our case.
Fourthly, pursuing for differences leads to identity politics or ethnic conflict like that in Rwanda where the Tutsi and Hutu who had the only difference of their nose killed seven lakh people, that was 70 percent of the Tutsi population, only in a period of 100 days. However, if perceive for similarities, Hindus in India find their ancestral link to Imam Hussain (a.s.) in Karbala. Kashmiri find their links with Imam Khomeini (r.a.). Sometimes feels satisfaction in saying that Imam Khamenei had visited Kashmir when he was President of the country. When these people can unite on small ancestral links which could also be a myth why we can’t unite on basis of all these similarities which are true to the best of our knowledge?
Second friendly quarrel is not actually a quarrel but an addition to his point. Amaa Bu said that the unity, which is also a Quranic obligation, should be for a greater objective rather than mere materialistic cause. I agree with this. His realisation of such a critical issue reflects that Kargil has plethora of intellectual minds.
I believe that to reach at that level of understanding our society still need more time. At this moment only, few people like you has this issue a real concern. Majority of the people have concern for Roti Kapda and Makan. Most of the time or in almost all cases the ideological debate of the leader would influence or inspire only the maximum of 10-15 percent of the population. You can cross check in history. The slogans that influence the mass is Roti, Kapda and Makan. This is the reality and we have to accept the bitter reality.
So, what I suggest is, for a short period let them unite even for these material benefits. This unity itself would be a step to unite for the greater cause which you are concerned.
Keeping in mind the lengthy article the points have narrowed down. All points need to elaborate. I encourage young writers and novice thinkers to put forward their ideas also; either on this blog or on their own blog.