This refers to “A debate on the Haud literary festival in Kashmir” (Sept.8), where Mr. Apoorvanand writes, “when” the organisers “clarified that the event was not sponsored by Indian state and was privately funded …” while Mr. Basharat Peer seems to still believe very strongly otherwise. Surely, the so-called “clarification” has not been to the satisfaction of critics. Initiating a dialogue on the subject of “sponsorship of the festival” would make a huge difference to the beliefs of both the parties concerned. The aim should be a “successful literary festival,” since such initiatives are among the stepping stones to a democratic set-up where people have the right and the freedom to express their views and opinions.
Jake,Kozhikode
Mr. Peer's argument that the political and family associations of some of the organisers is reason enough to oppose this great initiative holds no water. Do political affiliations wholly define what an individual is? We all know most feudal families oppressed their people before 1947. So how many generations of their family are we supposed to boycott to undo that injustice? His assertion that he did not ask for a boycott of the festival itself is naive because their whole campaign led to so much of ill will that it became almost impossible for the organisers to go ahead with the festival. Harm has been done to Jammu and Kashmir.
Udayan Dhar,Mysore
I am disappointed by the self-imposed literary isolationism of some Kashmiri authors. Pre-judging an event even before its occurrence, and that too based on the background of the sponsors, betrays a sense of victimhood and deep-rooted bias. It doesn't make sense to deprive Kashmir's talented writers the opportunity to give vent to their innermost thoughts unfettered by the burden of politics. Literature cannot flourish in cloistered environments. The “boys and girls of Kashmir” need varied and substantive contacts with the world outside to understand that truth has many shades.
V.N. Mukundarajan,Thiruvananthapuram
