FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-VI-12-2000
Item
- Title
- FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-VI-12-2000
- extracted text
-
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
Vol VI #12/2000
INFORMATION BULLETIN
A Disputed Legacy:
The Myths Behind the Kashmir “Problem” — I
Ram Puniyani
®
COMMENT
..
ashmir is a picturesque valley in the
north-west of the Indian subcontinent.
Part of the valley is under the control of
Pakistan while the rest forms part of the Indian
state of Jammu and Kashmir. The inhabitants
of Kashmir are known as Kashmiris. The
situation along the border and in the Kashmir
valley has been tense for a long time. Both India
and Pakistan challenge the legality of the each
other’s claim to and presence in the territory.
Kashmir was divided and partitioned between
the two countries soon after Independence as a
result of an armed conflict.The line of partition
is the cease-fire line as agreed to in 1949, with
some modification as a result of the Indo-Pak war
of 1971. The line is now known as the Line of
(Actual) Control (LOG). That part of the territory,
which lies within India also, includes the region
of Ladakh, and the plains of Jammu. The multi
ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-religious region
of Jammu and Kashmir has experienced unrest
and conflict off and on since Independence and
the accompanying partition. For the past decade
or more, however, the conflict has taken the form
of insurgency and armed hostility. Pakistan’s
open support to the insurgents has also made it
an issue between two sovereign states. Both
countries maintain that the main discord between
them is over Kashmir. It is also an issue that can
possibly spark off a war between the two
countries.
K
This ramification has often overshadowed all
other aspects of the Kashmir issue. It is often
perceived in the contending countries as well as
in the rest of the world as a territorial dispute
between Pakistan and India. The citizens of
Kashmir, the Kashmiri people - their identity,
grievances, aspirations, and wishes - are usually
forgotten in the discussions at formal levels of
legality, international conventions and decisions.
In the past few years of insurgency, the
Kashmiris have voiced their- own opinion, and
raised the issues of Kashmiriyat - the distinctive
character of Kashmir and Kashmiris - and of
their right to self determination, autonomy, and
possible independent existence.
These two issues of FAM try to analyse and
understand the entire question with the people
of Kashmir at the centre of the discussion, as
the principal players and subjects. To address
the issue of Kashmir is to inevitably address the
modern history of the subcontinent - the nature
of the transfer of power from the British colonial
regime to the indigenous rulers, and the effects
it has left on the entire region in general and
Kashmir in particular.
The main constitutional instrument for
determining the future position of Kashmir was
the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Section
7(l)(b).
C FAC TS against MYTHS
g
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
The issue of accession is quite complex. The strict
‘British’ legal position was that with the lapse of
the treaties and agreements with the British
government, sovereignty of princely reverted to
the princes. They were then free to accede,
merge, and integrate with India or Pakistan (or
technically even remain independent).
and Pakistan despite peace accords and treaties
hardened positions. The second in 1971, resulted
in the creation of Bangladesh. The Simla
Agreement (1972) provided that two countries
would, inter alia, attempt to resolve the issue of
Kashmir bilaterally, with the Line of Control a
de facto international border.
In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the ruler
was Hindu, the population in Kashmir valley
predominantly Muslim. The ‘king1 could not
make up his mind'about accession. He may have
cherished dreams of ruling an independent
principality. His hesitation and indecisiveness
gave the opportunity for an invasion of the
territory by the so-called ‘Azad Kashmir. Arm/
made up of regular soldiers and irregular
volunteers from Pakistan. As a result, the ruler
decided to appeal to India for help and
subsequently acceded to India. The Indian army
entered the State and stopped the advance of
the army from Pakistan. The ‘Line of Control’
established as a result of this action formed theeffective but forever disputed Indo-Pakistan
border. It was actually the line dividing the
territory of Jammu and Kashmir between the
Indian and Pakistani jurisdictions. Ever since
then, Pakistan has contested the accession of
Jammu and Kashmir to India. It has also
maintained that the final destination of the
territory remains conditional until the people of
Jammu and Kashmir themselves have had an
opportunity to determine their political destiny
through a referendum or ‘plebiscite’.
Pakistan probably looked at the Simla accord as
an agreement forced upon it. (This is particularly
true of the opponents of the then Prime Minister
of Pakistan, Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto. These
opponents of Bhutto subsequently came to
power.) India equally obviously considered it the
document to rely on in all bilateral disputes.
Jammu and Kashmir was subsequently to
become a victim of the proxy war between the
two States with the Kashmiris the main victims
of this conflict. A UN sponsored resolution to hold
a referendum in the territory around the issue
of self-determination has never been
implemented, with both Indian and Pakistani
governments blaming each other for the lack of
the necessary political will.
[The question of plebiscite today is, of course, not
very simple. The three sub-regions, Kashmir,
Jammu, and Ladakh do not share the same
political history, trends of development, and
aspirations. There are also religious and cultural
differences in the people of the three areas. The
presence of armed militant groups and security
forces make a ‘free and fair* ballot an odious if
not impossible task. The results, whatever they
are, may cause even greater disaffection and
turmoil than exists at the moment.]
Meanwhile political events overtook the UN
resolution. The first war of 1965 between India
FACTS against MYTHS
Unfortunately for the Kashmiris, though part
of the territory is of the kind “where not a blade
of grass grows” Kashmir is of great geo-political
and strategic importance, directly for Pakistan,
China, and India. Indirectly it interests any and
all super-power/s that have a stake in South
Asia.
An open insurgency has come up in Kashmir
since the late 80s. The response of the Indian
State has been typical. It has relied on political
noises but ‘administrative’ (read military)
solutions. The situation has slowly but steadily
deteriorated. Occurrences in other parts of the
region have also had an impact. The advances
of Taliban in Afghanistan, the availability of the
erstwhile anti-Russian guerrilla fighters for
engagements elsewhere, the disintegration of the
USSR and the resultant availability of Central
Asian mercenaries has increased the extent and
intensity of the insurgency. It has also, as never
before, acquired a character of a “holy war’ with
tinges of Islamic fundamentalism. It is obvious
that even the Kashmiri militant groups are
confused over the development; The current
multiplicity of the organisations with doctrinal,
political, strategic, and tactical differences
indicates the deep divide.
The insurgency has achieved one aim. The
Indian response has been quite Confused. The
attempts to rule the state in ‘national interests’
with military might have given Indian rule the
character of an occupation administration. ‘Firm’
efforts at rooting out ‘secessionism, extremist
militancy, and foreign mercenary infiltration’
have held the civilian population of Kashmir the Kashmiris - in a state of siege. There have
been repeated allegations of abuses of human
rights. The goodwill and the support of the
Kashmiris have been lost. (They may be, in all
probability are, equally fed up with and scared
ofthe militant, mercenary groups.) India accuses
Pakistan of continuously fomenting the trouble,
with funds, arms, and training to the militant
groups. It has called it a covert or proxy war
designed to destabilise India. The repeated
breakdowns of talks have been one of the most
significant features in the relationship between
the two countries. The search for a lasting
solution to the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir
has so far been futile.
There have been different efforts to find a
solution, including the recent ‘cease fire’ or
‘cessation of aggressive advances and initiatives’
by the Indian armed forces and a call to all
groups to come to the negotiating table.
Predictably, these have had paltry results. The
hitch has been simple. Who is the representative
of the Kashmiri people and of Kashmiriyat, is
one fundamental question. The other,
obviously, is whether any talks about a solution
to the Kashmir problem can be effective at all
without the participation of Pakistan. There is
actually, a third critical question. Can Pakistan
prevail upon the varied militant groups to accept
a peace accord and a non-violent solution?
Demographically, Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh
has some of the most diverse peoples with the
Muslims in majority in the Kashmir valley, while
the plains of Jammu are dominated by Hindus,
who make up the largest minority in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole. The third
largest group is Buddhist Ladakhis, who live in
the mountainous, difficult, and ice-bound, near
desert region of Ladakh.
The religious factor obviously needs to be taken
into consideration. The struggle for autonomy,
identity, even independence of the Kashmiris has
taken on an increasingly religious hue in the
recent past. This is perhaps an inevitable,
natural development given the extant religious
divide of the population and a real or imagined
perception of the Indian administration as a
Hindu rule and government. The foreign (nonKashmfri) volunteers or mercenaries (Afghans,
Uzbeks, even Sudanese, according to Indian
official sources) in the ranks of the militants in'
ever increasing numbers (if reports are to be
believed) also strengthen and fortify the Islamic
and “Holy War’ (Jihad) stances.
Such- more or less fundamentalist positions
would actually be quite paradoxical in Kashmir;
The Islam practised in Kashmir is Islam as
propagated by the local Sufi order of the Silsilae-Rishiyan, the Muslim saints of Kashmir, whose
progenitor was Sheikh Nuruddin (1379-1442)
also known as Nuruddin Rishi or Nund Roishi,
< FACTS against MYTHS
FOSSIL EXCAVATED IN KASHMIR...
revered also by the microscopic Hindu
community of Kashmir as a great saint.
The genesis of the Kashmir Problem is in the
real and perceived grievances of the Muslim
inhabitants. Since the time of Independence,
Kashmir has remained an underdeveloped
region. While most of the state’s industry is
concentrated in Jammu most of the development
funds are spent in the Kashmir valley, where
60 per cent of the population is engaged in
horticulture, although tourism used to also
flourish around Srinagar and other tourist spots.
The two areas compete for economic resources,
and an attempt has been made to keep a delicate
balance between them, reflected in the state
administration moving to Jammu in winter and
to Srinagar in summer. The lack of economic
development has fuelled resentment against the
Indian administration and has led to a hardening
ofview within the Muslim majority that they are
discriminated against. Specific grievances
include the fact that Urdu has not been made a
nationally recognised language of India, that
investment in education is among the lowest for
the whole country, and that industrial
investment has been virtually non-existent.
Politics in the state of Jammu and Kashmir has
tended to be dominated by the central
government in New Delhi, and this has added
to popular resentment against the Indian State.
Devolution proposals and moves towards greater
autonomy have been limited, and have
foundered on the intransigence of Indian
politicians suspicious of Pakistani involvement
in the secessionist movement in Jammu and
Kashmir. The situation is further complicated by
a) the general inefficiency and corruption of the
successive state governments and b) the nuclear
explosions by both India and Pakistan in 1997
leading to the nuclearisation of South Asia.
Acerbating this is the demand that Ladakh be
separated from Jammu and Kashmir and be
given the status of a union territory, ruled
directly from New Delhi.
The almost exclusive focus on the ‘Kashmir
Problem’ (meaning insurgency and militant
activity) has to a certain extent marginalised the
basic problems relating to people, their livelihood,
and their economy. It is generally perceived that
the Kashmiris and their whole economy exist in
isolation from international and national
development processes and policies including
those of economic globalisation and liberalisation.
Further, even the form of Islam most Kashmiris
practice is the specifically Kashmiri Islam of the
local Muslim Rishis, the most eminent of whom
was Sheikh Nuruddin whose shrine at Chrar-eSharaief was destroyed on the night of May
10,1995. It is necessary to therefore demystify
the ‘Kashmir Problem’ and dispel the myths
generated by both Hindu and Muslim communal
forces. The latter even disapprove of the
specifically Kashmir character of the Islam
practised by Kashmiris.
It is obviously not possible to reduce the Kashmir
problem to mere economic factors. It should
nevertheless be remembered that social and
economic forces have shaped the issue to a great
extent. The ‘secular’ policies of the Indian state
have had one interesting feature. The State has
more often than not conceded ‘cultural’ meaning
religious and symbolic demands of particular
groups but left the political and economic
grievances untouched. This has led to a
perpetuation of non-integration and
maintenance of separate (often religious/
communal) identities in different ways. Firstly
the material basis of integration, social-economic
interaction and interdependence, is not
developed. The groups remain under-developed,
confined to specific professions, constrained in
terms of access to resources, assets, credits, and
opportunities, discriminated against and
deprived in cultural and educational fields, as
well as forced to adopt a different life style. The
symbolic or token but visible cultural concessions
overtly mark out the groups. Further, the very
survival of the group depends on the nurture of
this (superficial) distinct identity. Their demands
and the articulation of their aspirations are also
then focussed on the question of identity in a
peculiar manner. This has so far always provoked
a supercilious and contemptuous response from
FACTS against MYTHS
the ‘mainstream’ Indian society. It further
marginalises the peripheral group. This in turn
facilitates the domination of the group by
fundamentalist, essentially regressive elements
who emphasize the separateness.
MYTH: The Kashmir ‘problem’ is another
example ofMuslim separatism.
FACT: There are several unresolved issues
associated with the tragedy of Partition and
accession of Kashmir to India.
Kashmir was one of the princely states without
the direct rule of the British. King Hari Singh of
the Dogra dynasty who ruled Kashmir at the
time of Independence refused to join the
Constituent Assembly under the Cabinet mission
plan. Eighty per cent population of Kashmir
valley was Muslim. The Maharaja had two
options, one to remain independent, two either
to merge with India or with Pakistan. Maharaja
was tending to remain independent. The Hindu
leaders of Jammu, from the J & K Rajya Hindu
Sabha including those who later on joined w)
B/iaratiya Jana Sangh, the predecessor of
present BJP supported the Maharaja. “He was
supported by loyal Hindu leaders from Jammu
who vociferously argued that a Hindu state, as
Jammu and Kashmir claimed to be, should not
merge its identity with secular India. They later
changed their stance and wanted the Maharaja
to decide in favour of accession to India.
All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference also
wanted Kashmir to remain independent with a
new constitution. The Congress on its part had
urged all the states to merge with one or the other
dominion. Lord Mountbatten also took the same
position urging all the princely states to merge
with India or Pakistan, while Jinnah said that
these princely states could remain independent
if they so. wished..,...,
__ . r .-J
Maharaja Harisingh offered standstill agreement
to both India and Pakistan. India refused this
offer while Pakistan accepted the same. Under
this, central departments of state coming under
Lahore circle were to come under the jurisdiction
of Pakistan. “Accordingly Pakistani flags
fluttered all over the offices of the post and
telegraph department all over the state.”2 India
insisted on prior negotiations and so no
agreement could be reached. The Maharaja
appointed Bakshi Tekchand to formulate a new
Constitution of Kashmir
Communal riots in October 1947 in the aftermath
of Partition found the state machinery ill
equipped to handle the crisis.
4
Around this time Pathan tribal invaders were
let loose by Pakistan to invade Srinagar. The
Maharaja flew away from Kashmir for personal
safety leaving the security of Kashmir to
National Conference and its leader, Sheikh
Abdullah. The invaders were not welcome as
Kashmiri psyche was far from communal. There
were deep-set values of Kashmiriyat, which
refused to give primacy to religion as the
determining factor of political behaviour.
This is where lay the peculiarity of Kashmir.
“Kashmir has been melting pot of ideas and
cultures. It received every new creed with
discrimination and enriched it with its own
contribution, without throwing away its earlier
acquisitions.”3 G.M.D. Sufi in his monumental
work says, “the cult of Buddha, the teachings of
Vedanta, the mysticism of Islam have one after
another found a congenial home in Kashmir.”^
Due to this integration, people coming from
distant lands so mixed with Kashmiri Muslims
in culture, civilisation and through matrimonial
F relations that all non-Kashmiri traces were totally
subdued.
Emperor Akbar annexed Kashmir and began the
period of alien rule over the land. After many6
dyansties the Dogras became the rulers.
Harisingh was thus a non-Muslim, non-Kashmiri
ruler of Kashmir at the time of Independence.
Parallel to the struggle of Indian National
Congress, in Kasmir the National Conference
began its movement against the King, which
culminated in the Quit Kashmir Movement.
Contrary to Jinnah’s stand that sovereignty
belongs to Maharaja, Gandhi and Nehru held
that sovereignty belongs to the people. Jinnah’s
opinion and Pakistan’s actions were polar
contrast to the secular democratic opinions of
Gandhi and Nehru and no wonder that the latter
along with the principles of the Indian state were
more in tune with the thinking of Kashmiri
people and their leadership in the form of
National Conference and Sheikh Abdullah. The
Maharaja under pressure and due to his inability
to protect Kashmir requested the Indian
Government to bail him out. The Indian
Government wanted the state to accede to India
before it could send armed forces to ward off
Pakistan’s aggression. The accession treaty was
signed with the provision of article 370. It was
not a merger. India was to look after defence,
currency, foreign affairs, and communication
while Kashmir was to have its own constitution,
flag, Sadar-I-Riyasat and Prime Minister.
Justifying this action Pandit Nehru in a
C FACTS against MYTHS
broadcast to the Nation on Nov.2, 1947 said,
“Both the Kashmir Government and the
National Conference pressed us to accept this
accession and to send troops by air, but made
condition that the accession would have to be
considered by the people of Kashmir later when
the peace and order were established.”®
India approached the UN with a request to get
the aggression vacated and to supervise the
process of plebiscite. The issue was referred to
the United Nations Security Council for a
peaceful settlement. The accession was to be
subject to the ratification of the wishes of
Kashmiri people. Lord Mountbatten, Governor
General of India wrote, “Consistent with their
policy where the issue of accession is under
dispute, the question of accession should be
decided in accordance with the wishes of people
of the state. It is my Government’s wish that, as
soon as law and order have been restored in
Kashmir and its soil cleared of invaders, the
question of state should be settled by a reference
to the people.”® Linking the two issues created a
new problem and plebiscite was postponed sine
die since the aggression was never vacated.
Kashmir was also multiethnic and divided into
five regions. Though there was good deal of
intermingling, there was also some specificity of
each area. There were the vast northern areas
of Gilgit and Baltistan, which are now directly
administered by Islamabad; the predominantly
Punjabi Muslim strip on the western side which
we call POK, the huge, sprawling region of
Ladakh with its Tibetan and Central .Asian
cultural influences; the Jammu region and,
finally the Kashmir Valley with its unique
cultural and historical heritage. Two of these five
regions have been under Pakistan control for
over half a century.
An emergency Government under Sheikh
Abdullah took over in Kashmir. In 1951, elections
were held in Indian part of Kashmir and
National Conference came to power. As pointed
out above in the accession treaty J&K was
granted a special status under Article 370 of the
Constitution. Another point to be noted here is
that in 1952 talks between Nehru and Sheikh
Abdullah, there was a proposal to grant regional
autonomies to different areas within Kashmir but
it was never implemented. By now Praja
Parishad a close ally of Jana Sangh, the
predecessor of BJP pressed for total merger of
Kashmir with India.
The crucial factor in the process of alienation of
Kashmir from India began with Jana Sangh
5
Chief Shyama Prasad Mookeijee’s insistence,
supported openly by the Jana Sangh and
covertly by some bigwigs in Congress as well,
for the total merger of Kashmir with India. At
this point Nehru was under the external pressure
of Jana Sangh and internal pressure from some
of his colleagues in the cabinet to totally integrate
Kashmir with India. However, Nehru with his
wisdom could say “We have to be men of vision
and there has to be a broad minded acceptance
of facts in order, to integrate really. And real
integration comes from mind and the heart and
not of some clause, which you may impose, on
other people.”® Nehru despite his own beliefs
could not hold on to the policy of trust in the
popular Kashmiri leadership and the same
mistake was to be repeated by successive Prime
Ministers resulting in intensification of alienation
of Kashmiri people over a period of time. Asghar
Ali Engineer sums of the beginning of the process
of alienation of Kashmir very well, “The original
sin was committed by the Congress Government
during the Prime Ministership of Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru was emotionally
attached to Kashmir and it is difficult to say
whether he was genuinely disposed towards
letting Kashmir have autonomy as laid down
under the article 370. After the arrest of Sheikh
Abdullah, the Centre was more than anxious to
water down Kashmir’s autonomy and wanted to
retain State’s grip on Kashmir. With pliable
Chief Ministers succeeding Sheikh, it was not
difficult. The Kashmir Assembly passed
resolutions to slowly surrender its autonomy.
First, it abolished the posts ofSadr-e-Riyasat and
Prime Minister, replaced them with Governor
and Chief Minister, and then asked for
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to be extended
to the state. By the time Sheikh Abdullah was
released state assembly surrendered all these
autonomy measures voluntarily.”^
Accusing Sheikh Abdullah, responsible for the
accession of Kashmir to India, was in due course
to become the seed, which later grew in to the
tree of alienation. The post Nehru era was to
worsen this alienation by extending more
provisions of Indian Constitution to Kashmir.
This was to provoke hostility and anger amongst
Kashmiri Nationalists. “The wave of anger
provoked by fresh threats of identity of Kashmir
tempted Pakistan to send thousands of armed
infiltrators to the state. They got no response
from Kashmiri people, as though anti-India, they
did not prefer Pak ‘Liberators’”^®. The 1971 war
and break-up of Pakistan led to fresh dialogue
between Abdullah and Indian leaders. Abdullah
returned to power after his demand for
restoration of pre-1953 status of state was
conceded while he, in turn, conceded the right
to region’s autonomy. In one of the fairest
elections ever to be held in Kashmir the Sheikh
proved his popularity at the hustings when he
literally swept the polls. In the elections in 1983,
Sheikh’s son who inherited the mantle ofa
leadership of National Conference won the'
elections but Rajiv Gandhi illegally superseded
his government and he was restored as the CM
only in 1986 when he agreed to share power
with Congress leaving the void in opposition. This
void in the opposition was gradually filled by
Muslim United Front, which tried to capitalise
on the feelings of deep humiliation caused by
Farooq’s coalition with the party that had
dismissed him in a humiliating way. “They
manipulated elections of 1987 and blocked the
democratic and secular outlet of discontent. In
sheer desperation a group of young men,
including some candidates, whose elections were
manoeuvred, their polling agents took to gun.
This gave a good opportunity to Pakistan to use
the liberation of Kashmir as the cause for which,
it systematically started training volunteers
After the death of Shyama Prasad Mookeijee,
these elements become more assertive in opposing
the State-Centre relations. Sheikh Abdullah,
who was so far hailed as a patriot was dubbed a
traitor and a Muslim communalist. Sheikh who
so far felt that threat to Kashmiri identity came
from Pakistan started feeling the threat of
suppression of Kashmiriyat from India. “Giving
vent to popular sentiments, he started
equivocating on the issue of accession. Some more
factors aggravated the situation which
eventually led to his dismissal from power and
detention on August 9,1953. The year 1953 thus
symbolised the emotional rupture of Kashmir
from rest of India.”®
FACTS against MYTHS
under the aegis of Jammu and Kashmir
Liberation Front. Taking advantage of the
alienation of local people from the Indian State,
Pakistan gradually intensified the training of
militants. Pakistan Government having realised
the anti-India sentiments of Kashmir people
turned the Independent Kashmir option into
Pro-Pakistan option. This caused disillusionment
amongst local people so Pakistan increasingly
. started recruiting external militants who were
ruthless in death and destruction of property and
fives of Hindus as well Muslims.
The militants, most of whom were trained and
recruited from neighbouring countries; especially
6
Pakistan did maximum damage to the communal
amity. So far the local militants could never think
of Hindu-Muslim divide, as both these
communities stood together, as Kashmiris. It is
worth noting that in the 1996 elections to the
state assembly, the National Conference
contested the elections on the basis of autonomy
within India and autonomy of regions within the
state, it won all the seats barring one. Farooq
kept shifting his loyalties to the party in power
at the centre, giving the message that Kashmir
does not have the option of opposing the ruling
Government at the centre, confirming the
perception of its status as a colony of the Centre.
There have been repeated dismissals of the
democratically elected Governments in Kashmir
in order to extend provisions from the Indian
Constitution to Kashmir. Every such attempt has
widened the gulf between India and the people
of Kashmir. There have been four major
attempts to patch up the peace and restrict the
autonomy
a.
1952- Agreement between Sheikh and
Nehru, Indian Government agrees to
provide autonomy within India.
b.
1974-Agreement between Parthsarthy
(Indira Gandhi emissary) and Afzal Beg
affirm right of Jammu and Kashmir to
have its own laws on matters mentioned
in state constitution.
c.
1995 Narsimha Rao declares that short
of Azadi, ‘sky is the limit’, but within
Iridian constitution.
d.
Deve Gowda promises ‘maximum
autonomy’to J&K, as it is a special state
needing special treatment.
Kashmir is a state where the democratically
Selected Government has been superseded
maximum number of times. Practically every
Chief minister has been terminated by the
Central Government indicating its attitude, A
major blow to the sentiments of Kashmiris,
however, came in- 1984 when Governor
Jagamohan dismissed the duly elected Farooq
Government giving a clear signal to people of
state that forget right to secede from India,
Kashmir can not even have its own
democratically elected government in power. This
led to the further alienation of the Kashmiris and
erosion of their Kashmiri identity and progress
towards the sectarian Muslim identity. The
discontent is exploited by vested elements and
shaped into an anti-India campaign.
Q FACTS against MYTHS
MYTH: Kashmir is a Hindu Muslim
Problem,
FACT: Kashmiri politics does not divide its
history into Hindu and Muslim period, as both
Hindu and Muslim communalists have always
done, but into Kashmiri and foreign periods#.
Contrary to this myth, the subjugation of
Kashmir did not begin in 1947 when the last
Dogra ruler acceded to India nor when the Dogra
ruler Gulab Singh of Jammu first acquired
Kashmir irom the British in 1846. It began way
back in 1586 (ibid.) when Emperor Akbar
extended his domain to the Kashmir valley, and
later continued through the Afghan, Sikh and
Dogra rulers down to the “secular” government
of India!
Although Sheikh, Abdullah did prevaricate and
vacillate considerably between 1943 and 1953,
his own understanding of his role and the
Kashmiri aspirations was contrary to the
misconception spread about him. In his inaugural
address to the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent
Assembly he explained the reasons why the
Kashmiris had preferred India to Pakistan.
India’s secular Constitution, he stressed would
allay the fears of those who believed that the
Muslims of Kashmir would not be secure in a
Hindu majority country. The national movement
in Kashmir “naturally gravitates towards these
policies of secular demoeracy because the people
will never accept any principle that favours one
religion or social group over another”, (ibid.)
Besides, the accession of Kashmir to India,
Sheikh Abdullah felt would help defeat the
Hindu communal forces by setting any example
which would counter the logic of communalism.
In short, in Kashmir itself the movement of
National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah was
founded on secular principles.
India’s anxiety to integrate the state in the
Indian union overruling the democratic process
resulted partly in the gradual alienation of the
people. The further suppression of Kashmiri
identity led to the emergence of Muslim identity.
Yet, remarkably, communal riots failed to erupt.
The then Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru had
made it abundantly clear in Constituent
Assembly on March 5,1948 that “We would not
have gone there (Kashmir) in spite of the
invitation of the Maharaja of Kashmir, if that
invitation had not been backed by the
representatives of Kashmir.”13 Despite the
lucrative offer of powers to the Maharaja and
the predominant Muslim population, which was
free to go to Pakistan, they did not do so mainly
for the aspirations for secular syncretic values
that they wanted to preserve.
It began to look like a Hindu-Muslim problem
mainly because of erosion of Kashmiriyat, the
Kashmiri ethnic identity. The identity, which
filled this gap, was that of Islam. This was the
golden opportunity for the nefarious designs of
Pakistani Military- Mullah regime to give the
communal colour to the whole issue. The mistrust
of the popular leadership played the role of an
ideal foil to this ruse.
MYTH: Kashmiris are unreasonable,
treacherous, deceitful, and pro-Pakistan
people.
FACT: Kashmiri people had enough opportunity
to opt for merger with Pakistan. Jinnah had
promised more powers and acceptance of his
sovereignty to the Maharaja who also tilted
towards Pakistan for a while. Pakistani flags
were also hoisted on the buildings of Post and
Telegraph departments. The Kashmiri people,
majority of them Muslim, however, never wanted
to be a part of Pakistan. They spurned the lures
and the military aggression too. They steadfastly
opposed Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan.
Despite the severe alienation due to the policies
of Indian rulers, suppression of their ethnic
aspirations, repeated dismissal of popular
governments, by the Indian Governments
Kashmiri people even today are not opting for
Pakistan as the alternative. Their main demand
has been to preserve their autonomy as promised
in the treaty of accession, their main aspiration
is to preserve the ethnic character of Kashmir
and to be able to live the life away from the
crossfire. One of the recent opinion polls
conducted by Outlook (Oct. 16, 2000) reveals
that any assumptions to the contrary are quite
baseless. According to 74% of the respondents
separate identity of Kashmir is what is required,
16% favoured greater autonomy and only 2%
wanted merger with Pakistan. 39% still felt that
a solution could be found within the framework
of Indian constitution. [It should however be
remembered that today the demand has taken
on the form of secession from the Indian Union.
The damand now is for “azaadi” or independence.
(All references at the end ofPart II ofthe article, r
# Blood in the Valley by Lokshahi Hakk
Sanghatana.
Please feel free to reproduce material from this publication but with due credit.
The website of"Vikas Adhyayan Kendra has been launched andis now operational. Kindly visit us at
http://www. vakindia. com and let us have your comments and suggestions about it.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
nn
VEx
I
_
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
D-l Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA |
a : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Fax : 889 8941
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
I
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
I
Printed by: Omega Offset, 4574, Shetty Gaily
Belgaum590 002. S 0831-424124 / 433429
pPlNTEDMATTBK
BOOK-POST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
Position: 3646 (3 views)