FOCUS
KASHMIR - A Question of Answers
Mr.M. Veerappa Moili, the present Union Law Minister, in a moment of ‘introspective enlightenment’ wrote as follows “The congress leadership right from 1947, has always surrendered its ego and shunned narrow political opportunism in providing stable governments in Jammu & Kashmir. This objective approach and display of sagacity are absolutely in tune with the legacy of the Congress party right from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajeev Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi has to be commended for her enlightened and statesmanly approach, inspired by national spirit, in lending her support to heralding a vision of Kashmir.” This was way back in 2002 Nov. Writing in the Deccan Herald (DH) of 27th Nov.2002, “Beyond Democracy’s Moment of Glory – Keeping Promises in Kashmir” Mr. Moili, as a diehard loyalist Congressman, remembered not to include Mr Lal Bahadur Shastri, the cleanest and financially the poorest Prime Minister, in his no holds barred praise of Nehru, his daughter Indira and grandson Rajeev in the above said piece in DH. Indians in general and Mr. Moili in particular need to remember that as the executive head of the state, it was this ‘soft, small little man of India’, Shri Shastri, who taking an unusually aggressive posture ordered a full scale retaliation on Pak Army in the Chamb Sector of Jammu, in Sept. 1965. Pak Army crumbling under intense Indian attack cried for international help and no help came. Pakistan lost. UN brokered ceasefire came into force on 22nd Sept. 1965.
Responding to the article in DH, a reader had written a letter to the Editor, with a copy endorsed to Mr Moili, which is quoted here verbatim. Quote “‘Beyond Democracy’s …………, (DH 27th Nov.) by Shri Veerappa Moili, made an interesting reading, not because any thing new Shri Moili stated except that, there was this veiled desire to make to Delhi’s corridors of power. He praised the entire Nehru dynasty along with the Congress with special attention on the ‘enlightened and statesmanly’ leadership of Sonia Gandhi.”
“The whole of reading public of India are privy to the contribution of Nehru dynasty to the Kashmir imbroglio from Nov. 1947 itself, when India stopped the military operation against retreating Pathani tribals and referred the issue to the UN. But what need repetition here, for the information of Shri Moili and his ilk is a portion of the letter written by Jaya Prakash Narayan (JP) in 1966 to Ms. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, who had continued the detention of Sheikh Abdullah, on charges of sedition.”
J.P. had written “I would like to close this letter with one more question from Sheikh Abdullah. Before he left for trip abroad, this is what he had said at a farewell function at the Constitution Club on 10th Feb. 1965 – ‘we might have differences among ourselves (Kashmir and India). But after all, India is the homeland of all of us. If God forbid, India ceases to be India and goes down, how can others be saved?’ Why do I plead for Sheikh Abdullah’s release? Because that may give us the only chance we have of solving the Kashmir problem” That was in 1966. We are in 2002. Both J.P. and Sheikh Abdullah are no more. After 35 years, as luck would have it, Kashmir imbroglio remained a burning problem. How singularly prophetic was J.P.” unquote.
In this summer of discontent of 2010, things have greatly changed for the worse, than it was in 2002 when an elected coalition government of PDP and INC took the reins of power in J & K, and Shri Moili was exhorting the new government to reach out to the aspiration of Kashmiri people.
But the sad fact has been that every political dispensation in Delhi has been always short sighted in dealing with issues in Kashmir, as per the political requirement of the time.
It is true that despite the wisdom of the Indian army leadership of that time, our then political leadership went to UN. As things turned out UN couldn’t solve the problem, but it enabled Pakistan to keep irritating India’s political leadership for many decades.
As all students of Indian history are aware, Kashmir named after sage Kashyap has its own peculiar history. Srinagar, the capital, was built by emperor Ashoka, however he did not pay attention to its economic development. Like whole of India, Kashmir too was inhabited by Hindus, until 1320, when it was ravaged by Chengez Khan’s men who defeated the local Hindu King Suhadev. His descendent, Prince Ranchana, a Tibetan refugee, took to Islam and the Muslim rule started around the same time. Like Christianity has spread in Europe after the Roman emperor became a Christian, similar development took place in Kashmir too, since Prince Ranchana embraced Islam.
Towards the end of 18th century, Kashmir became part of Ranjit Singh’s empire. Gulab Singh Dogra, an army hand with Ranjit Singh was given Jammu as a gift for showing valour in the seize of Multan, who joined hands with Britishers after the death of Ranjith Singh, to defeat Sikhs. In thanks giving, British handed over Kashmir to Dogra. Thus started the Hindu Monarchy in Muslim majority J&K. Hari Singh, who succeeded Gulab Singh, was licentious and selfish without the concern of welfare of his subjects. Extreme poverty prevailed in most parts of Kashmir. People were longing for better days, but the king offered them no hope.
It was in 1905, Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, whose ancestors were Hindus, was born to a literate family. His family, knowing the value of education, helped him complete his Masters in Science, which was by any standard, a very high qualification at that time. However as providence had it, he could only manage to become a teacher in a Govt. School in Srinagar.
Being highly educated, he envisioned a better Kashmir for his brethren. His education, tall built and sonorous voice endeared him to Kashmiri people and he became their natural leader to fight for them.
Articulating the problems of agrarian population of Kashmir, he demanded land reforms and self rule. In July 1931, he launched civil disobedience movement, which resulted in the imprisonment of a batch of volunteers. A mob attacked Srinagar central jail, that caused the death of 9 people in police firing. But that resulted in some concessions from the Monarchy and Sheikh Abdullah, the Lion of Kashmir, had arrived.
Positive side of Sheikh Abdullah was his secular outlook. He was opposed to the politics of Muslim League and hence had following among both Muslims and Hindus. His message to Kashmiris was “there is no difference between a good Hindu and good Muslim”, but he did not accept the legitimacy of Hari Singh, a Hindu, as the King of Kashmir. He wanted people’s power to prevail, which came to be flaunted as ‘plebiscite’ in later years. Thus, what Pakistan should know is, Sheikh Abdullah was against the King and not against India. He never approved of the two nation theory of Jinnah and his Muslim League. Fortunately for Sheikh, both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were against Indian Kings, since they were traitors to the cause of Indian freedom. Thus when Sheikh Abdullah demanded freedom from Dogra autocracy, he was arrested on his way to Delhi on sedition. Nehru traveled to meet detained Sheikh Abdullah to the great joy of Kashmiris. Thus an emotional bond was forged between Nehru, a Kashmiri himself, and Sheikh Abdullah and his people. After a brief trial Hari Singh sentenced Sheikh Abdullah to 3 years imprisonment in July 1946.
In the meanwhile Pakistan was conceded by the British, which led to nation wide tension, bloodshed followed. Mahatma Gandhi visited Kashmir on 31st July 1947, while Sheikh Abdullah was still in jail, and gets a huge welcome with Begum Abdullah receiving Mahatma personally. Expressing solidarity with Kashmiri struggle Mahatma addressed a large gathering of National Conference workers. He was welcomed everywhere he went, thus telling Pakistan, that Kashmiris are with India.
15th Aug. 1947 came and having earlier opted for a temporary accession to India, the government of Hari Singh in Srinagar succumbed to New Delhi’s pressure and released Sheikh Abdullah soon thereafter. For Sheikh the moment to decide the future of Kashmir had come.
Nehru’s friendship and reverence to Mahatma had drawn Sheikh Abdullah to India greatly, however it was his people who had to make their choice, whom he exhorted with slogans like “Hindu Muslim Ittihad (friendship) ki Jai”.
Being unhappy with Kashmiris not joining Pakistan, Jinnah sent Pak army in the garb of Pathani triblas to grab Kashmir on the 22nd Oct. 1947. These ‘tribals’ entered Muzaffarabad and started looting. Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah appealed New Delhi for help. Without formal accession treaty, Nehru rightly refused to interfere. Seeing end of the road, and having tasted Pakistani belligerence in such a short time, Hari Singh readily signed the treaty. Thus on 26th Oct. 1947, Kashmir became an integral part of India, and Indian army entered Kashmir to tackle the marauding Pak army. It took almost 14 months to drive these Pakistani led ‘Pathani tribals’ to the wastelands of North. Nehru went to U.N. A ceasefire was brokered. Thus was born ‘Pakistani Occupied Kashmir.’
This illegal occupation by Pak army became possible only due to the machinations of both U.S. and the U.K. for their own interest of overseeing the then USSR. Yes 62 years ago, we were just pawns in the global chess game. With UN intervention, it was like an impasse. Was going to UN a wrong move?
Came 1950, the Indian Constitution was unveiled. In their wisdom, Constitution makers provided a special status for Kashmir. Article 370, precluded Indians from other parts of India from buying landed property in Kashmir. Did this provision prove detrimental to India’s secular credentials?
Now to confirm the accession by people, an election became necessary. In the Sept. 1951 election, all the 45 seats were won by National Conference. When Nehru visited Kashmir to share the Kashmiris joy at their new found freedom, the slogans like “Kashmir will go with Nehru and India forever” rent the air. Pakistan was comprehensively proved wrong.
Having won the election for his people, Sheikh had to decide about the formal accession to India, and expressed his opinion that joining India shall be in the best interest of Kashmir. He had reportedly stated that “Pakistan has taught us a lesson. Being small and poor, Kashmir would be swallowed by Pakistan easily. They had tried once and can do it again”.
It is true that Sheikh Abdullah did not trust Pakistan and its leader Jinnah. But it was equally true that he was ambivalent about throwing the lot of Kashmir and his people with India, although his utterances at different times indicated that he was happy being with India. But this uncertainty really became a thorn in the flesh for Sheikh Abdullah. While Central Government of Nehru, was concerned about this unsure state of mind of Sheikh Abdullah, Dr Karan Singh, the son of Hari Singh, was waiting to displace Sheikh Abdullah, since the monarch was only a ceremonial head and was not calling the shots in Kashmir. In an unprincipled scheme of things, Bakshi Gulam Mohd, the deputy of Sheikh was encouraged to split National Conference to upstage its undisputed leader. On 8th Aug. 1953, Sheikh Abdullah was arrested on trumped up charges of Pro Pakistani conspiracy. The next day, the new government of ‘Yes’ man Bakshi came into being. Did this move of Dr Karan Singh had blessings of New Delhi? It is difficult to believe otherwise.
Sheikh Abdullah was released after over 4 years. Things had greatly changed. Government of Chief Minister Bakshi had ratified the accession treaty. A ‘Plebiscite Front’ was formed by Sheikh’s supporters. But obviously the government of Bakshi had the backing of power that be, and accused Sheikh of ‘wavering in your agonising search for alternative to our accession to India, including independence of a truncated Kashmir’. However Sheikh Abdullah was deeply disturbed at the ‘murder of democracy in Kashmir since the assembly of Bakshi government did not have a representative character.’
Continuing the attempts to alienate Sheikh Abdullah, a question was allowed to make its rounds, ‘Is he entertaining thoughts of secession from India?’ An unproven point, but vested interests along with their friends in the media kept up the pressure. On a conspiracy theory he was again imprisoned for another 6 years.
Thus, in the 17 years of free India, Sheikh Abdullah spent 10 years in Indian jails. But Sheikh harbored no bitterness towards India. Having known the fact of imprisonment, Ayub Khan invites Sheikh Abdullah after his release in 1964, to test the changing Kashmiri waters. But despite great welcome in Pakistan, Sheikh Abdullah did not criticise India and instead praised India’s secular credentials. Pakistan was not amused.
27th May 1964, an invite from Sheikh Abdullah to Ayub Khan to visit India reached Indian High Commission for onward delivery. But visit was destined to be still born. All India Radio suddenly went mourning with rendering of “Vaishnava Janato Tene Kahiye”. It was early afternoon the same day, one of the greatest Indian of his time, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s 1st Prime Minister, was dead.
Shiekh Abdullah had lost a good friend. On learning of Nehru’s death, he reportedly broke down to uncontrollable sobbing. With Lal Bahadur Shastri, he couldn’t sustain the same rapport. The chasm widened. Assertion of self determination by Kashmiris became shriller leading to Delhi patriots becoming more hostile.
In early 1965, Sheikh Abdullah travels abroad on an Indian passport, with nationality mentioned as ‘Kashmiri Muslim’. Was this not an assertion? How was this cleared without the intervention of PMO? Delhi patriots had a point. For all that India did to him and his state, including fighting a war on their behalf, when it came to nationality, he didn’t want to be called Indian. While being abroad, Sheikh Abdullah did the most unthinkable. He met and spoke to Chou-en-lai, the visiting Chinese premier, in Algiers. This was seen as hostile act and his passport was cancelled. Waiting for the opportunity Zulfikar Ali Bhutto offered him Pakistani passport. Ignoring the Bhutto generosity Sheikh Abdullah returned home to India in mid-May.
War of Sept. 1965 humiliated Pakistan further. Not only it lost it, but found to its displeasure and dismay that Kashmiris were not enthused with Pakistan, despite differences with India.
Sheikh Abdullah who was detained on his return from foreign trip was released in Jan. 1968, at the behest of Jaya Prakash Narayan. In the meanwhile Lal Bahadur Shastri died and Indira Gandhi had become the Prime Minister.
Speaking to the Id congregation after his release, he told Kashmiris that they must see India as their country and they must live and die here. However he insisted the involvement of Pakistan for a lasting resolution of the Kashmir issue. But the birth of Bangladesh in 1971 convinced him that Pakistan cannot be trusted at all. Pakistan lost comprehensively in its war with India on its eastern border, and paved way for East Pakistan to breakaway to become Bangladesh. The resultant POW would have become a huge bargaining chip to get POK returned to India. But the Shimla Agreement signed by Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto instead effectively partitioned Kashmir by recognising Line of Control.
Speaking to the Friday Congregation, Sheikh Abdullah reiterated not to look towards Pakistan and instead told his aide Mirza Afzal Beg to discuss with New Delhi for greater autonomy. Thus closed the door on Pakistan. POK demonstrated – led by Mullahs – against this surrender to India.
With the Congress support, in Feb. 1975, Sheikh Abdullah was sworn in Chief Minister. Emergency of June 1975, changed it all. In 1977 Congress lost power at the centre for the first time, thanks to JP movement.
In Srinagar Congress withdrew support to Sheikh Abdullah. The new Janata dispensation at centre ordered fresh election and Sheikh won handsomely. From July 1977 until his death on 8th Sept. 1982, Sheikh Abdullah remained Chief Minister.
The whole of Kashmir had gathered at the Srinagar Polo ground to say good bye to the soul of their revered leader. Laid in state, the body of Lion of Kashmir was draped in Indian tricolour. Yes, at last Sheikh Abdullah died as an Indian, and Pakistan had no comment to offer.
Like the Congress, Sheikh too was no different. Inspite of lecturing on democracy he had groomed his son Farooq Abdullah to take over. Urbane Farooq, liberal and educated with an open style of functioning endeared himself to Kashmiri public. However Indira Gandhi, who had come back to power after the Janata fiasco, wanted enhanced role for Congress in Kashmir. Could this have been the beginning of a newer set of problems of trust deficit?
Indira Gandhi replaced the Governor B K Nehru, the less pliant, with Jagmohan, the more pliant. A split was engineered in the National Conference with the active help of the governor. Farooq Abdullah’s government was dismissed on 2nd July 1984. G. M. Shah, a non-MLA was sworn in as CM. Across the political spectrum leaders protested all over India at this blatant butchery of democratic norms.
Many winters later and many ups and downs, there have been far reaching long term changes in the body politic of the country. Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Rajeev Gandhi became the Prime Minister. Won the election to Loksabha with over 400 seats, had the opportunity of changing everything he could, with the over 2/3rd Loksabha members of Congress party. But he frittered it away. He lost next election. His beite noire VP Singh became the Prime Minister and he made a Kashmiri as his Home Minister. Mufti Mohd. Sayeed, a Congress deserter, was made the most powerful Kashmiri in Delhi.
In the meanwhile militancy raised its ugly head, Pakistan actively supported separatists. Farooq Abdullah was back in the CM’s chair.
It was Dec. 1989, something sinister was cooking somewhere in Kashmir. On 8th Dec., Dr Rubaiya Sayeed, an unmarried daughter of India’s then Home Minister was kidnapped by four militants as she was returning from hospital duty in the afternoon.
Farooq Abdullah who was in London, rushed back. Subsequent development led to the demand by militants for the release of 5 terrorists held in jail, in exchange for the release of Dr. Rubaiya. Farooq Abdullah was of the firm belief that any abject surrender to the terrorist demand would have gravest consequences of far-reaching nature. He wanted to negotiate to explore all possibilities. There was also a possibility that kidnapped Dr Rubaiya could be released without any exchange, since there was public outcry on this supposedly unislamic act. But V P Singh government buckled, apparently under advice from Mufti Mohd. Sayeed, the Union Home Minister, and father of Dr. Rubaiya. On 13th Dec. 1989, Dr Rubaiya was set free after two hours of the release of five terrorists by the government. Those released terrorists reportedly left for their hideouts and then to POK, after a triumphant procession by locals.
By hindsight, could this act of ‘indiscretion’ by the V P Singh government – but advised by Mufti Mohd. Sayeed – be the single most important factor that caused the most damage to the management of Kashmir?
Was Mufti, a disgruntled ambitious Kashmiri, who was a pain to both Abdullah’s (father and son Farooq), and now to the grand son Omar Abdullah, planning some long term coup?! Was he playing a dangerous and diabolic game to promote himself and his family?
After kidnapping incident, V P Singh government decided to act ‘tough’. It hoisted controversial governor Jagmohan back on Srinagar. Farooq Abdullah resigned. J&K came under President’s rule. Paramilitary forces started house to house search which alienated locals greatly. Without the elected government, paramilitary, under instruction from governor, was without leash. All kinds of happenings took place. Kidnapping, killing, youth going to POK for arms training, all increased uncertainties for average Kashmiri. Pakistan of Benazir Bhutto came out in open support of secession. Azadi became the shrill cry. Hindus started to migrate out of the valley in hordes.
In 1996, the whole country goes to polls so was Kashmir. Although boycotted by militants, Farooq Abdullah manages to get over 54% votes and forms government. In 2002 National Conference is voted out. Congress and Peoples Democratic Party forms coalition government. Although Congress had more seats, PDP insists on Chief Minister’s position in the first half of the term. Ambition of Mufti Mohd. Sayeed comes to the fore. Gulam Nabi Azad, a sober Kashmiri Congress man stands aside to make way for Mufti, after intervention of Congress President. This arrangement gives a role for Mufti’s daughter and PDP president Mehbooba to play in the troubled water.
Whatever be the short-comings of Abdullah clan, from Sheikh to Farooq to Omar, their striking qualities were their openness, straight forwardness and their secular outlook. In an Indian context, these are very important and endearing qualities. Unfortunately the father and daughter duo of Mufti were not as open, as straight forward and as secular as Abdullah trio. That has indeed made lot of difference. Hobnobbing with Muslim separatists by Mehbooba did cause completely avoidable problems. Pakistan encouraged by Mehbooba’s overtures to seperatists increased their involvement which was anyway on the rise since U.S. started finding Pakistan to fight terrorism post 9/11 attack on World Trade Centre.
The present no holds barred demonstration by all and sundry has to be seen in this evolving light.
While it is true that National Conference was the single largest party representing most of Kashmiris, Congress over the years had muddied the political waters, and had weakened the National Conference leadership of Abdullahs. Of course, the initial ambivalence by Sheikh Abdullah did leave a space for other political players. But India with the vision of a true leader could have truly solved the problem, once and for all, post 1971 scenario of emergence of Bangladesh due to Pakistani chicanery, since Sheikh Abdullah was the most acceptable leader to Kashmiris. When Congress took over the reins in Srinagar, Gulam Nabi Azad, reached out better, leading to the largest turnover of voters to 4 bye elections, average being around 70%. However, the election that followed in Nov/Dec 2008, propelled National Conference again as the single largest party. National conference formed the government with Congress as partner. Left in the cold, PDP was jobless. The unrest witnessed now has its genesis to this PDP joblessness.
Some 70 odd stone pelters have lost their lives. Both National Conference and Congress are trying to do its best to contain the unrest. But PDP is seen more with mobs, hoping to reap dividends of the ongoing trouble. While both National Conference and Congress are not on sure ground, oldster Gilani may not influence despite his poisonous diktats. Even moderate separatist Umar Farooq may not count for much.
There appears to be a new Pro-Islamist leadership taking over the reins of troubled Kashmir. There is this Massarat Alam of Alishah Gilani faction and Asiya Andrade, the congenital India baiter and powerful Pro-Pakistani women leader. If memory serves us right, during Ramadan month there would be cessation of trouble from people, but this time round mosques were openly used to give call for stone pelting demonstration and ‘Azadi’ slogans. Our 24x7 media went around to find and harp about only those who complained of the hardship. They didn’t cover those who disapproved the coercion of these new leadership but were afraid to say, since there is still a mortal fear of being brutally reprimanded. This unrest also has something to do with the November visit of President Obama. Pakistan is itching to tell him “see what is wrong with the ‘India Occupied Kashmir'”.
To end the stalemate there are not many options available either to India or to the Kashmiris. India lost its best opportunity already more than once. Kashmir is hopelessly divided about going to Pakistan. They want autonomy. Can the autonomy do good to Kashmir? Autonomy needs resources. Where will the resources come from? So far India was funding. Who will fund after granting autonomy? So, centre has to float the idea that all parties – political parties and others, including separatists – should sit to-gether in Srinagar and come to New Delhi with their single proposal. Of course, these parleys among the stake holders in Kashmir should not be vitiated by the media smarties, so they have to be kept out. To start with atleast violence from either side shall hopefully stop with this move. That could hopefully lead to a new beginning.
Mr.M. Veerappa Moili, the present Union Law Minister, in a moment of ‘introspective enlightenment’ wrote as follows “The congress leadership right from 1947, has always surrendered its ego and shunned narrow political opportunism in providing stable governments in Jammu & Kashmir. This objective approach and display of sagacity are absolutely in tune with the legacy of the Congress party right from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajeev Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi has to be commended for her enlightened and statesmanly approach, inspired by national spirit, in lending her support to heralding a vision of Kashmir.” This was way back in 2002 Nov. Writing in the Deccan Herald (DH) of 27th Nov.2002, “Beyond Democracy’s Moment of Glory – Keeping Promises in Kashmir” Mr. Moili, as a diehard loyalist Congressman, remembered not to include Mr Lal Bahadur Shastri, the cleanest and financially the poorest Prime Minister, in his no holds barred praise of Nehru, his daughter Indira and grandson Rajeev in the above said piece in DH. Indians in general and Mr. Moili in particular need to remember that as the executive head of the state, it was this ‘soft, small little man of India’, Shri Shastri, who taking an unusually aggressive posture ordered a full scale retaliation on Pak Army in the Chamb Sector of Jammu, in Sept. 1965. Pak Army crumbling under intense Indian attack cried for international help and no help came. Pakistan lost. UN brokered ceasefire came into force on 22nd Sept. 1965.
Responding to the article in DH, a reader had written a letter to the Editor, with a copy endorsed to Mr Moili, which is quoted here verbatim. Quote “‘Beyond Democracy’s …………, (DH 27th Nov.) by Shri Veerappa Moili, made an interesting reading, not because any thing new Shri Moili stated except that, there was this veiled desire to make to Delhi’s corridors of power. He praised the entire Nehru dynasty along with the Congress with special attention on the ‘enlightened and statesmanly’ leadership of Sonia Gandhi.”
“The whole of reading public of India are privy to the contribution of Nehru dynasty to the Kashmir imbroglio from Nov. 1947 itself, when India stopped the military operation against retreating Pathani tribals and referred the issue to the UN. But what need repetition here, for the information of Shri Moili and his ilk is a portion of the letter written by Jaya Prakash Narayan (JP) in 1966 to Ms. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, who had continued the detention of Sheikh Abdullah, on charges of sedition.”
J.P. had written “I would like to close this letter with one more question from Sheikh Abdullah. Before he left for trip abroad, this is what he had said at a farewell function at the Constitution Club on 10th Feb. 1965 – ‘we might have differences among ourselves (Kashmir and India). But after all, India is the homeland of all of us. If God forbid, India ceases to be India and goes down, how can others be saved?’ Why do I plead for Sheikh Abdullah’s release? Because that may give us the only chance we have of solving the Kashmir problem” That was in 1966. We are in 2002. Both J.P. and Sheikh Abdullah are no more. After 35 years, as luck would have it, Kashmir imbroglio remained a burning problem. How singularly prophetic was J.P.” unquote.
In this summer of discontent of 2010, things have greatly changed for the worse, than it was in 2002 when an elected coalition government of PDP and INC took the reins of power in J & K, and Shri Moili was exhorting the new government to reach out to the aspiration of Kashmiri people.
But the sad fact has been that every political dispensation in Delhi has been always short sighted in dealing with issues in Kashmir, as per the political requirement of the time.
It is true that despite the wisdom of the Indian army leadership of that time, our then political leadership went to UN. As things turned out UN couldn’t solve the problem, but it enabled Pakistan to keep irritating India’s political leadership for many decades.
As all students of Indian history are aware, Kashmir named after sage Kashyap has its own peculiar history. Srinagar, the capital, was built by emperor Ashoka, however he did not pay attention to its economic development. Like whole of India, Kashmir too was inhabited by Hindus, until 1320, when it was ravaged by Chengez Khan’s men who defeated the local Hindu King Suhadev. His descendent, Prince Ranchana, a Tibetan refugee, took to Islam and the Muslim rule started around the same time. Like Christianity has spread in Europe after the Roman emperor became a Christian, similar development took place in Kashmir too, since Prince Ranchana embraced Islam.
Towards the end of 18th century, Kashmir became part of Ranjit Singh’s empire. Gulab Singh Dogra, an army hand with Ranjit Singh was given Jammu as a gift for showing valour in the seize of Multan, who joined hands with Britishers after the death of Ranjith Singh, to defeat Sikhs. In thanks giving, British handed over Kashmir to Dogra. Thus started the Hindu Monarchy in Muslim majority J&K. Hari Singh, who succeeded Gulab Singh, was licentious and selfish without the concern of welfare of his subjects. Extreme poverty prevailed in most parts of Kashmir. People were longing for better days, but the king offered them no hope.
It was in 1905, Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, whose ancestors were Hindus, was born to a literate family. His family, knowing the value of education, helped him complete his Masters in Science, which was by any standard, a very high qualification at that time. However as providence had it, he could only manage to become a teacher in a Govt. School in Srinagar.
Being highly educated, he envisioned a better Kashmir for his brethren. His education, tall built and sonorous voice endeared him to Kashmiri people and he became their natural leader to fight for them.
Articulating the problems of agrarian population of Kashmir, he demanded land reforms and self rule. In July 1931, he launched civil disobedience movement, which resulted in the imprisonment of a batch of volunteers. A mob attacked Srinagar central jail, that caused the death of 9 people in police firing. But that resulted in some concessions from the Monarchy and Sheikh Abdullah, the Lion of Kashmir, had arrived.
Positive side of Sheikh Abdullah was his secular outlook. He was opposed to the politics of Muslim League and hence had following among both Muslims and Hindus. His message to Kashmiris was “there is no difference between a good Hindu and good Muslim”, but he did not accept the legitimacy of Hari Singh, a Hindu, as the King of Kashmir. He wanted people’s power to prevail, which came to be flaunted as ‘plebiscite’ in later years. Thus, what Pakistan should know is, Sheikh Abdullah was against the King and not against India. He never approved of the two nation theory of Jinnah and his Muslim League. Fortunately for Sheikh, both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were against Indian Kings, since they were traitors to the cause of Indian freedom. Thus when Sheikh Abdullah demanded freedom from Dogra autocracy, he was arrested on his way to Delhi on sedition. Nehru traveled to meet detained Sheikh Abdullah to the great joy of Kashmiris. Thus an emotional bond was forged between Nehru, a Kashmiri himself, and Sheikh Abdullah and his people. After a brief trial Hari Singh sentenced Sheikh Abdullah to 3 years imprisonment in July 1946.
In the meanwhile Pakistan was conceded by the British, which led to nation wide tension, bloodshed followed. Mahatma Gandhi visited Kashmir on 31st July 1947, while Sheikh Abdullah was still in jail, and gets a huge welcome with Begum Abdullah receiving Mahatma personally. Expressing solidarity with Kashmiri struggle Mahatma addressed a large gathering of National Conference workers. He was welcomed everywhere he went, thus telling Pakistan, that Kashmiris are with India.
15th Aug. 1947 came and having earlier opted for a temporary accession to India, the government of Hari Singh in Srinagar succumbed to New Delhi’s pressure and released Sheikh Abdullah soon thereafter. For Sheikh the moment to decide the future of Kashmir had come.
Nehru’s friendship and reverence to Mahatma had drawn Sheikh Abdullah to India greatly, however it was his people who had to make their choice, whom he exhorted with slogans like “Hindu Muslim Ittihad (friendship) ki Jai”.
Being unhappy with Kashmiris not joining Pakistan, Jinnah sent Pak army in the garb of Pathani triblas to grab Kashmir on the 22nd Oct. 1947. These ‘tribals’ entered Muzaffarabad and started looting. Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah appealed New Delhi for help. Without formal accession treaty, Nehru rightly refused to interfere. Seeing end of the road, and having tasted Pakistani belligerence in such a short time, Hari Singh readily signed the treaty. Thus on 26th Oct. 1947, Kashmir became an integral part of India, and Indian army entered Kashmir to tackle the marauding Pak army. It took almost 14 months to drive these Pakistani led ‘Pathani tribals’ to the wastelands of North. Nehru went to U.N. A ceasefire was brokered. Thus was born ‘Pakistani Occupied Kashmir.’
This illegal occupation by Pak army became possible only due to the machinations of both U.S. and the U.K. for their own interest of overseeing the then USSR. Yes 62 years ago, we were just pawns in the global chess game. With UN intervention, it was like an impasse. Was going to UN a wrong move?
Came 1950, the Indian Constitution was unveiled. In their wisdom, Constitution makers provided a special status for Kashmir. Article 370, precluded Indians from other parts of India from buying landed property in Kashmir. Did this provision prove detrimental to India’s secular credentials?
Now to confirm the accession by people, an election became necessary. In the Sept. 1951 election, all the 45 seats were won by National Conference. When Nehru visited Kashmir to share the Kashmiris joy at their new found freedom, the slogans like “Kashmir will go with Nehru and India forever” rent the air. Pakistan was comprehensively proved wrong.
Having won the election for his people, Sheikh had to decide about the formal accession to India, and expressed his opinion that joining India shall be in the best interest of Kashmir. He had reportedly stated that “Pakistan has taught us a lesson. Being small and poor, Kashmir would be swallowed by Pakistan easily. They had tried once and can do it again”.
It is true that Sheikh Abdullah did not trust Pakistan and its leader Jinnah. But it was equally true that he was ambivalent about throwing the lot of Kashmir and his people with India, although his utterances at different times indicated that he was happy being with India. But this uncertainty really became a thorn in the flesh for Sheikh Abdullah. While Central Government of Nehru, was concerned about this unsure state of mind of Sheikh Abdullah, Dr Karan Singh, the son of Hari Singh, was waiting to displace Sheikh Abdullah, since the monarch was only a ceremonial head and was not calling the shots in Kashmir. In an unprincipled scheme of things, Bakshi Gulam Mohd, the deputy of Sheikh was encouraged to split National Conference to upstage its undisputed leader. On 8th Aug. 1953, Sheikh Abdullah was arrested on trumped up charges of Pro Pakistani conspiracy. The next day, the new government of ‘Yes’ man Bakshi came into being. Did this move of Dr Karan Singh had blessings of New Delhi? It is difficult to believe otherwise.
Sheikh Abdullah was released after over 4 years. Things had greatly changed. Government of Chief Minister Bakshi had ratified the accession treaty. A ‘Plebiscite Front’ was formed by Sheikh’s supporters. But obviously the government of Bakshi had the backing of power that be, and accused Sheikh of ‘wavering in your agonising search for alternative to our accession to India, including independence of a truncated Kashmir’. However Sheikh Abdullah was deeply disturbed at the ‘murder of democracy in Kashmir since the assembly of Bakshi government did not have a representative character.’
Continuing the attempts to alienate Sheikh Abdullah, a question was allowed to make its rounds, ‘Is he entertaining thoughts of secession from India?’ An unproven point, but vested interests along with their friends in the media kept up the pressure. On a conspiracy theory he was again imprisoned for another 6 years.
Thus, in the 17 years of free India, Sheikh Abdullah spent 10 years in Indian jails. But Sheikh harbored no bitterness towards India. Having known the fact of imprisonment, Ayub Khan invites Sheikh Abdullah after his release in 1964, to test the changing Kashmiri waters. But despite great welcome in Pakistan, Sheikh Abdullah did not criticise India and instead praised India’s secular credentials. Pakistan was not amused.
27th May 1964, an invite from Sheikh Abdullah to Ayub Khan to visit India reached Indian High Commission for onward delivery. But visit was destined to be still born. All India Radio suddenly went mourning with rendering of “Vaishnava Janato Tene Kahiye”. It was early afternoon the same day, one of the greatest Indian of his time, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s 1st Prime Minister, was dead.
Shiekh Abdullah had lost a good friend. On learning of Nehru’s death, he reportedly broke down to uncontrollable sobbing. With Lal Bahadur Shastri, he couldn’t sustain the same rapport. The chasm widened. Assertion of self determination by Kashmiris became shriller leading to Delhi patriots becoming more hostile.
In early 1965, Sheikh Abdullah travels abroad on an Indian passport, with nationality mentioned as ‘Kashmiri Muslim’. Was this not an assertion? How was this cleared without the intervention of PMO? Delhi patriots had a point. For all that India did to him and his state, including fighting a war on their behalf, when it came to nationality, he didn’t want to be called Indian. While being abroad, Sheikh Abdullah did the most unthinkable. He met and spoke to Chou-en-lai, the visiting Chinese premier, in Algiers. This was seen as hostile act and his passport was cancelled. Waiting for the opportunity Zulfikar Ali Bhutto offered him Pakistani passport. Ignoring the Bhutto generosity Sheikh Abdullah returned home to India in mid-May.
War of Sept. 1965 humiliated Pakistan further. Not only it lost it, but found to its displeasure and dismay that Kashmiris were not enthused with Pakistan, despite differences with India.
Sheikh Abdullah who was detained on his return from foreign trip was released in Jan. 1968, at the behest of Jaya Prakash Narayan. In the meanwhile Lal Bahadur Shastri died and Indira Gandhi had become the Prime Minister.
Speaking to the Id congregation after his release, he told Kashmiris that they must see India as their country and they must live and die here. However he insisted the involvement of Pakistan for a lasting resolution of the Kashmir issue. But the birth of Bangladesh in 1971 convinced him that Pakistan cannot be trusted at all. Pakistan lost comprehensively in its war with India on its eastern border, and paved way for East Pakistan to breakaway to become Bangladesh. The resultant POW would have become a huge bargaining chip to get POK returned to India. But the Shimla Agreement signed by Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto instead effectively partitioned Kashmir by recognising Line of Control.
Speaking to the Friday Congregation, Sheikh Abdullah reiterated not to look towards Pakistan and instead told his aide Mirza Afzal Beg to discuss with New Delhi for greater autonomy. Thus closed the door on Pakistan. POK demonstrated – led by Mullahs – against this surrender to India.
With the Congress support, in Feb. 1975, Sheikh Abdullah was sworn in Chief Minister. Emergency of June 1975, changed it all. In 1977 Congress lost power at the centre for the first time, thanks to JP movement.
In Srinagar Congress withdrew support to Sheikh Abdullah. The new Janata dispensation at centre ordered fresh election and Sheikh won handsomely. From July 1977 until his death on 8th Sept. 1982, Sheikh Abdullah remained Chief Minister.
The whole of Kashmir had gathered at the Srinagar Polo ground to say good bye to the soul of their revered leader. Laid in state, the body of Lion of Kashmir was draped in Indian tricolour. Yes, at last Sheikh Abdullah died as an Indian, and Pakistan had no comment to offer.
Like the Congress, Sheikh too was no different. Inspite of lecturing on democracy he had groomed his son Farooq Abdullah to take over. Urbane Farooq, liberal and educated with an open style of functioning endeared himself to Kashmiri public. However Indira Gandhi, who had come back to power after the Janata fiasco, wanted enhanced role for Congress in Kashmir. Could this have been the beginning of a newer set of problems of trust deficit?
Indira Gandhi replaced the Governor B K Nehru, the less pliant, with Jagmohan, the more pliant. A split was engineered in the National Conference with the active help of the governor. Farooq Abdullah’s government was dismissed on 2nd July 1984. G. M. Shah, a non-MLA was sworn in as CM. Across the political spectrum leaders protested all over India at this blatant butchery of democratic norms.
Many winters later and many ups and downs, there have been far reaching long term changes in the body politic of the country. Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Rajeev Gandhi became the Prime Minister. Won the election to Loksabha with over 400 seats, had the opportunity of changing everything he could, with the over 2/3rd Loksabha members of Congress party. But he frittered it away. He lost next election. His beite noire VP Singh became the Prime Minister and he made a Kashmiri as his Home Minister. Mufti Mohd. Sayeed, a Congress deserter, was made the most powerful Kashmiri in Delhi.
In the meanwhile militancy raised its ugly head, Pakistan actively supported separatists. Farooq Abdullah was back in the CM’s chair.
It was Dec. 1989, something sinister was cooking somewhere in Kashmir. On 8th Dec., Dr Rubaiya Sayeed, an unmarried daughter of India’s then Home Minister was kidnapped by four militants as she was returning from hospital duty in the afternoon.
Farooq Abdullah who was in London, rushed back. Subsequent development led to the demand by militants for the release of 5 terrorists held in jail, in exchange for the release of Dr. Rubaiya. Farooq Abdullah was of the firm belief that any abject surrender to the terrorist demand would have gravest consequences of far-reaching nature. He wanted to negotiate to explore all possibilities. There was also a possibility that kidnapped Dr Rubaiya could be released without any exchange, since there was public outcry on this supposedly unislamic act. But V P Singh government buckled, apparently under advice from Mufti Mohd. Sayeed, the Union Home Minister, and father of Dr. Rubaiya. On 13th Dec. 1989, Dr Rubaiya was set free after two hours of the release of five terrorists by the government. Those released terrorists reportedly left for their hideouts and then to POK, after a triumphant procession by locals.
By hindsight, could this act of ‘indiscretion’ by the V P Singh government – but advised by Mufti Mohd. Sayeed – be the single most important factor that caused the most damage to the management of Kashmir?
Was Mufti, a disgruntled ambitious Kashmiri, who was a pain to both Abdullah’s (father and son Farooq), and now to the grand son Omar Abdullah, planning some long term coup?! Was he playing a dangerous and diabolic game to promote himself and his family?
After kidnapping incident, V P Singh government decided to act ‘tough’. It hoisted controversial governor Jagmohan back on Srinagar. Farooq Abdullah resigned. J&K came under President’s rule. Paramilitary forces started house to house search which alienated locals greatly. Without the elected government, paramilitary, under instruction from governor, was without leash. All kinds of happenings took place. Kidnapping, killing, youth going to POK for arms training, all increased uncertainties for average Kashmiri. Pakistan of Benazir Bhutto came out in open support of secession. Azadi became the shrill cry. Hindus started to migrate out of the valley in hordes.
In 1996, the whole country goes to polls so was Kashmir. Although boycotted by militants, Farooq Abdullah manages to get over 54% votes and forms government. In 2002 National Conference is voted out. Congress and Peoples Democratic Party forms coalition government. Although Congress had more seats, PDP insists on Chief Minister’s position in the first half of the term. Ambition of Mufti Mohd. Sayeed comes to the fore. Gulam Nabi Azad, a sober Kashmiri Congress man stands aside to make way for Mufti, after intervention of Congress President. This arrangement gives a role for Mufti’s daughter and PDP president Mehbooba to play in the troubled water.
Whatever be the short-comings of Abdullah clan, from Sheikh to Farooq to Omar, their striking qualities were their openness, straight forwardness and their secular outlook. In an Indian context, these are very important and endearing qualities. Unfortunately the father and daughter duo of Mufti were not as open, as straight forward and as secular as Abdullah trio. That has indeed made lot of difference. Hobnobbing with Muslim separatists by Mehbooba did cause completely avoidable problems. Pakistan encouraged by Mehbooba’s overtures to seperatists increased their involvement which was anyway on the rise since U.S. started finding Pakistan to fight terrorism post 9/11 attack on World Trade Centre.
The present no holds barred demonstration by all and sundry has to be seen in this evolving light.
While it is true that National Conference was the single largest party representing most of Kashmiris, Congress over the years had muddied the political waters, and had weakened the National Conference leadership of Abdullahs. Of course, the initial ambivalence by Sheikh Abdullah did leave a space for other political players. But India with the vision of a true leader could have truly solved the problem, once and for all, post 1971 scenario of emergence of Bangladesh due to Pakistani chicanery, since Sheikh Abdullah was the most acceptable leader to Kashmiris. When Congress took over the reins in Srinagar, Gulam Nabi Azad, reached out better, leading to the largest turnover of voters to 4 bye elections, average being around 70%. However, the election that followed in Nov/Dec 2008, propelled National Conference again as the single largest party. National conference formed the government with Congress as partner. Left in the cold, PDP was jobless. The unrest witnessed now has its genesis to this PDP joblessness.
Some 70 odd stone pelters have lost their lives. Both National Conference and Congress are trying to do its best to contain the unrest. But PDP is seen more with mobs, hoping to reap dividends of the ongoing trouble. While both National Conference and Congress are not on sure ground, oldster Gilani may not influence despite his poisonous diktats. Even moderate separatist Umar Farooq may not count for much.
There appears to be a new Pro-Islamist leadership taking over the reins of troubled Kashmir. There is this Massarat Alam of Alishah Gilani faction and Asiya Andrade, the congenital India baiter and powerful Pro-Pakistani women leader. If memory serves us right, during Ramadan month there would be cessation of trouble from people, but this time round mosques were openly used to give call for stone pelting demonstration and ‘Azadi’ slogans. Our 24x7 media went around to find and harp about only those who complained of the hardship. They didn’t cover those who disapproved the coercion of these new leadership but were afraid to say, since there is still a mortal fear of being brutally reprimanded. This unrest also has something to do with the November visit of President Obama. Pakistan is itching to tell him “see what is wrong with the ‘India Occupied Kashmir'”.
To end the stalemate there are not many options available either to India or to the Kashmiris. India lost its best opportunity already more than once. Kashmir is hopelessly divided about going to Pakistan. They want autonomy. Can the autonomy do good to Kashmir? Autonomy needs resources. Where will the resources come from? So far India was funding. Who will fund after granting autonomy? So, centre has to float the idea that all parties – political parties and others, including separatists – should sit to-gether in Srinagar and come to New Delhi with their single proposal. Of course, these parleys among the stake holders in Kashmir should not be vitiated by the media smarties, so they have to be kept out. To start with atleast violence from either side shall hopefully stop with this move. That could hopefully lead to a new beginning.
Comments