The Kashmir Conflict-
 |
| Afzal Tahir |
historical over-view and possible alternatives.
by Afzal Tahir
The Kashmir question – as projected in official discourses
or officially sponsored discourses, certainly influenced public opinion and
mindsets both at home and abroad. The images been built as the source of
conflict dragging two modern States into confrontation and conflict, out of all
proportions. The bilateral image building of the conflict had been in practice
for last 60 years, do not offer us any other explanation except that it was to
confuse the thousands of years of Kashmir’s Political History, so to neutralise
the question of self-determination under the cover of inter-state rivalry.
The work of scholars, writers and journalists, too, failed
to escape the subject bilateral image of the conflict and so is the case with
the State and non-State actors while contributing in the processes of conflict
resolution. The strategic writers like, Ayesha Jalal concluded it: “A
glittering prize, a tantalizing dream, a festering sore, Kashmir is the fairy
tale that tortures the South Asian psyche.” [1] Certainly, the dominant
factor was and is: “a glittering prize” while dominating strategy had been
influenced by “a tantalizing dream” among the “Siamese twins”.
One might take Ayesha’s argument in line with school of
thought who see third world conflicts as endogenous and not exogenous in origin
where the threat to national security come either from ethnic strife or weak
legitimacy of ruling elites; or those who consider the distorted decolonizing
process in the Indian-subcontinent; the incompatibility of different ethnic
identities and economic backwardness etc. There is no disagreement on these lines
of argument, but, one cannot ignore the third world’s mind-set, especially the
ruling elites; partly the continuity of their colonial behaviour, and partly
may be their training and skilled they have had, while serving part of Empire’s
administration. There are still a dominating class of bureaucratic
intellectuals who think that the colonial tools are still an available answer
to the post-colonial questions.
The history of elements of fear of the variation of multi
denominations in a society had been used as a politicalweapon to deny or divert the public
opinion, is a case in point. The concept of democracy, for the people, by the
people, of the people, or the people’s relation to land, recognising their
history and culture, had never been translated into public opinion, and never
adopted as a policy, and, never practiced by the bureaucratic machines of newly
decolonise States of the third world. The urges of the people’s right to
self-determination, never allowed of its natural exit through democratic norms
of dispensations. The socio political, socio economic and socio cultural
demands dealt with patriarch, tribal and feudal responses on behalf of the
State, that is by all standards, is an anti-thesis to a culture where rule of
law prevailed and differences and demands settled through dialogue,
arbitration, judicial process and finally through the process of vote only
alternative course available to violence and anarchy.
Therefore the history of an armed insurgency and violent
resistance in third world, always been and is a natural out-come of the State’s
backward responses; aggravating the social fabric of society, further into
turmoil and turbulence resulting in human catastrophe, stagnation in socio
economic, socio cultural and socio political life of a society. This might partly
explain one of the reason of the poverty in third world.
The historical setting of Kashmir policy been persuaded by
both India and Pakistan; for last sixty some years and the responses and
approaches by the resistance movement, to identify and understand the fault
line and to judge whether or not the present on going dialogue process would
have any result oriented credibility that could pave the way to reduce the
hardship of the people of the sub-continent of India. The element of suspicious
in the people’s mind, is the rigid and barren mindsets of the bureaucratic
machines of India and Pakistan, lacking any fresh air of creative thoughts that
is necessary in the contribution of the process of conflict resolutions. The
fact that there had been a clear legal and political guidelines, were available
regarding to the Kashmir question right from the beginning, but, both the
Governments are still lingering on and not ready to address the issue, in it’s frame
work that was agreed and set out by both, sixty years before. Further
hopelessness stems from the fact while taking into account the stated positions
of both the Governments, yet, there is, no fresh ideas on table, and the
historical rigidity still prevail, and, dominated by patriarch, tribal and feudal
mindsets.
Let us to see, the question, whether or not an approach of a
historical rigidity adopted by the policy makers of both the Governments, is,
one of the main reason of the failure and the continuity of the same, would be
bound to fail too. We will look into the historical evidence, in the following,
to prove the point of a rigid and non-compatibility of the policy over to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir adopted and persuaded by both the Governments, i.e.
India and Pakistan for last sixty years and the subject policy was also the
clear contradiction of the very principle argument they have had used against
Britain to get their own Independence.
The representative of the Government of India, P. P. Pillai,
(one of the Dominion of ex-British India) on 1st January 1948 sent a letter to
the President of the Security Council transmitting a telegraphic communication
from the Government of India dated December 31, 1947, lodging a complaint with
the Security Council under Article 35 of the U.N. Charter, was a recognition of
the sovereign position of the State of Jammu Kashmir to the world body upon the
request of Indian Dominion. The Instrument of Accession dated 26th October 1947
and the reply by the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten on 27 October
1947 was and is a legal basis of the relation between India and the State of
Jammu and Kashmir, that is in the political terms, a treaty base relations. It
is also recognised both by India and UNO that the subject treaty is under
special circumstances and subject to the approval of the people of that State.
Furthermore, under the terms of subject Treaty, the Government of India took
responsibilities to use all means to vacate the territory of the State from
foreign invaders and to bring peace so that people of the united State of Jammu
Kashmir could have chance to decide their future. The complaint to UN was one
of the steps, taken under these responsibilities. Whatever angle one may take
to understand the conflict, the above mentioned legal and constitutional basis
cannot be ignore, and, that the World-Body, too, recognised the subject “Treaty
document,” as the basic legal frame-work, by which the State of Jammu Kashmir
is at par with another state, that was than Indian Dominion and now Indian
Union. Therefore the relations had been and still are based on the principle of
treaty. The treaty base relations cannot be confused with a constituent or
associated constituent part of a political entity.
The question that the treaty had been ratified by
constituent Assembly of J & K, was brought-up to the attention of UN during
1957 and rejected because of the same legal reason. Furthermore, the
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) a non-governmental body having
consultative statues with UN, had expressed the same legal opinion in their
report published during 1994 that the people of J & K have yet to exercise
their right to self-determination. In fact J & K is at par with Indian
Union on the basis of the terms of the treaty and have yet to decide whether to
ratify the subject treaty, renegotiate it or terminate once for all to restore
its own sovereignty.
The notion that J & K, is, a constitutional part of
Indian Union or claiming so, do not hold any water and reflect a mind-set of
undemocratic, illegal or unconstitutional norms of behaviour. The Indian
political discourse had and has been contradicting the very principle by which
they themselves attained their own national independence from United Kingdom;
that was the recognition of the people’s right to self-determination.
Historically, on one hand, India have had signed the Provisional Treaty of
Accession subject to be tested through a direct question to the people.
The Indian political class have had adopted and designed a
policy that was in total contrast with the principle of Inter-States relations
based on treaty. It would not be an over statement that on one extreme the
right wing while on other extreme the left wing, so far the question of J &
K concerned, everyone was happy to ride the RSS set band-wagon of “Integrate
Kashmir Movement”. An organized political opinion that influenced by the
fascist trends and directions, been projected among the masses of India
contributed by conservative, liberal or progressive alike.
The Bharatiya Jana Sangh whose successor the Bharatiya
Janata Party proclaimed on 15 January 1948: ‘Historically Kashmir has been a part of India. By
India, we mean the Hindu India (Indian King Akber by deception occupied Kashmir
only by 1586 or 1583). The, party’s parliamentary spokesman, Shyama Prasad
Mookherjee, asked on 20 June 1952: Is Kashmir going to be a republic within a
republic? Are we thinking of another sovereign parliament within the four
corners of India?[2] The then RSS Chief, Golwalkar, declared on 24 August 1953
that “the solution of the Kashmir question: …should not be left to the people
of Kashmir. The opinion of the entire country should be taken in deciding the
future of Kashmir”.[3] The liberals and socialists of India were too
shouldering the force integration movement of Kashmir with India the sine qua
non of secularism. Nehru while addressing Indian National Congress, declared:
‘Kashmir has become the living symbol of that non-communal and secular
State which will have no truck with the two nation theory on which Pakistan has
based itself.[4] On another occasion, Pandit Nehru said: ‘Kashmir is
symbolic as it illustrates that we are a secular state, that Kashmir with a…
large majority of Muslims nevertheless of its own “free will” wished to be
associated with India’.[5] The socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia argued
stronger unity between India and Kashmir, rejecting the idea of a plebiscite on
the ground that…if democracy created difficulty in the task of ….[creating] a
common-nationality
of Hindus and Muslims, then I attach more importance to that task.’[6] The same
argument supported by Praja Socialist Party leader H.V. Kamath and demanded
that steps should be taken to recovering Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.[7]
The CPI, the un-divided Indian Communists, too see …. ‘the best interest
of the people of Kashmir lay in their union with India. That would help
strengthen the democratic movement in both countries (Indo-Pak).’[8] Furthermore
the Party (CPI) dubbed the UNO as an Anglo-American imperialist agency and
demanded to be debarred from Kashmir[9] while revising earlier thesis of the
‘right of self-determination for national minorities’. The irony, that, CPI had
supported the creation of Pakistan on the ground of the right of
self-determination of Muslims. The Muslim political leaders of India, too, put
their weight behind integration movement of Kashmir. In fact, all the Indian
political class consciously or unconsciously exposed even seen to be holding
the banner of RSS, that was Ek Pradhan, Ek Nishan aur Ek Vidhan (One Prime
Minister, one flag and one constitution). One can see the commitment of Indian
political class with democracy that is why Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah identify
Indian democracy, ‘….the democratic process [of India] stops somewhere near
Pathankot. Between Pathankot and the Banihal Pass you find only a shadow of
these rights and after Banihal you do not find even semblance of them.’[10]
Indian political class not only had been projecting a
distorted version of democratic and secular norms, but, also, a vague security
threat. As early as 26 October 1947, when there was not a hint of imagination
of any future Indian confrontation with China. Nehru had telegraphed the UK
Prime Minister: ‘Kashmir’s northern frontiers …run in common with those of
three countries, Afghanistan, the USSR and China. Security of Kashmir, which
must depend upon its internal tranquillity and existence of stable government,
is vital to [the] security of India, especially since part of southern boundary
of Kashmir and India are common. Helping Kashmir, therefore, is an obligation
of national interest to India.’[11] The Indian commentator further explained
‘[Kashmir gives] us direct gateways to the North-Western Province of Pakistan
and Northern Punjab. It is India’s only window to the Central Asian Republics
of the USSR in the north, China on the east and to Afghanistan on the west.[12]
He is identifying a window of opportunity where as Nehru is crying as National
Security threat in spite of the fact that these are essential parts of
Inter-States relations.12 We have failed to identify any statement that would
explain the terms and obligations of the treaty and without democratic process
one wonder how the citizenship would be created? It is the socio-economic
discourse and the forces of means of production that bring people of different
colours, faiths and genders together, and that is how the communities developed
and shaped, based on socio-economic necessities. We wonder, especially, the
Socialists, that, to create common citizenship of Hindu and Muslim! It is a
wonderful utopian notion very similar to that of a mullah who is claiming in
his every week prayer-sermon that the Muslims are one nation, but the same
mullah would not be allowed to enter into another so-called Muslim Country
without a valid passport that would identify his citizenship, especially to a
“rich-Muslim Country”.
The rigid position that have had been the
guiding principle for the Indian political class over to Kashmir do not carry
any substance of dynamics of modern states system that is constantly evolving and continue developing to take different shapes. The pace of change in every
society: has always been in proportion to the changes in means of production
and the process of innovation and development in tools and equipment, play a
dominant role, not only in material changes but also a change in human thoughts
and behaviour. Is it possible to explain that lands are Muslims, Hindu, Buda,
Jew or Christian? Abu Gaith, one of the al-Qaeda leader, while reacting against
US offensive in Afghanistan, on a video-tape: “Leave the scared land of the
holly Prophet before we burn it under your feet” was trying to nationalise
Islam to confined it to a particular geographical location such as so-called
“Muslim Countries”. The question is what about American, Russian, Chinese,
French, British and German Muslims? The religion is an idea and ideology cannot
be inclusive and confined to a geographical location. That is why, one cannot
choose his/her neighbour, they have learn to live with it, a phrase of “natural
selection” would be more appropriate. The children do not have an option to
select their brothers and sisters, because they born-out by a woman, that make
them brothers and sisters similarly the people of a particular geographical
location born out of a particular land, inheriting history, cultural, language
norms and value system, that is: INCLUSIVE, regardless of colour, faith, gender
or any other possible human variations. The urges and struggle of human history
took thousands of years to achieve and recognise the right to be inclusive and
to eliminate all forms of discrimination was in fact the principle argument and
anti-thesis to Imperial norms of behaviour and expressed itself in modern state
system. Though people still narrates to identify differently. The possible
answer may be the historical attachment, that is in minds but not in practice
any more. The practice, is state and citizenship while there are still people
who identify themselves with tribes, locality or religion rather than state.
The answer is that in history of Imperial systems, they have had been
identified so, therefore historical over-lapping still continue in the thought
process of some people. The Citizen of a State is a reality of today’s world,
and the State is responsible to guarantee the equal rights to its citizens. The
history of Empires, do not recognise state or citizen-ship. It was having
different rules of engagement: “the masters and slaves”, the “Empires and its
subjects”. It was the Empires, were in need of a religion to control their
slave population and promote Kings and Queens in their minds as divinely
origin. The membership, of a religious community (ummah), in today’s world,
does not guarantee an automatic citizen-ship of a state. Therefore the
confusion by using out-dated argument and bogus ideologies; is, in line to the
urges of those who want to reverse the course of history and to re-establish
the old system of masters and slaves. In short the imperial mind-set still
exist in narration expressed in different ideologies, though leading into same
direction that is to re-build the Empires. Therefore, Indian political class
failed to recognise the fact that people’s relation to land was the basic
principle argument used against colonial powers. Furthermore they also ignore
the fact that Kashmir’s antiquity as per archaeological discoveries at
Baoursahama go back to 3000 BC, almost a contemporaneous to the Mohenjadaro
civilization, do not fall within the narrow notion of Princely States of India.
Therefore, a land, that owns a history, spread over more than 3000 years,
certainly would be in need of more than 3000 years of time to accept“ a force
integration”.
The political class in Pakistan too adopted the policy, not,
so different to their Indian counterpart. They, too, had never adopted a policy
based on the principle to respect and recognised the people’s right to
self-determination. Even before the partition of India, Mohammad Ali Jinah went
to Kashmir where he was given a public reception by National Conference headed
by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. He was well aware about the fact that Sheikh
Abdullah was enjoying full support of the people of Kashmir, but in another
public reception organised by Muslim Conference: He declared in a very
authoritarian manner ‘I am the leader of the Muslims of the Indian
sub-continent. Therefore, I wanted Sheikh Abdullah to dissolve his party and
join Muslim Conference.’ Kashmir was the only state where people came out on
the streets, protesting and demanding that Mr. Jinnah should leave Kashmir.
Subsequently, he was forced to abandon his Kashmir tour. The irony that Mr.
Jinnah, himself was using religion, as a weapon of scare mongering among
Muslims of British India, but when he realized that Sheikh Abdullah’s
popularity is too deep rooted and stronger than that of him. Observing the
clear trends among the masses that neither he nor his Muslim League had not
stand a chance, he gave historical remarks against Sheikh Abdullah: ‘This tall
man is reading holly Qur’an and exploiting the sentiments of the people of
Kashmir.’
The Government of Pakistan reacted on the “Provisional Treat
of Accession” with India, on 30 October 1947: ‘The Government of Pakistan
cannot accept the version of the circumstances in which Kashmir acceded to the
Indian Dominion.’ Kashmir was and has been projected as ‘an article of faith’.
The Pakistani’s have had been fed with propaganda to fight ‘for Kashmir on the
same principle they had fought for Pakistan.’[13] Mr. Mushtaq Gurmani, Kashmir
Affairs Minister Government of Pakistan, till Nov 1951 articulated Kashmir
policy as follows: ‘Kashmir is an article of faith with Pakistan and not merely
a piece of land or a source of rivers….we are fighting for Kashmir on the same
principle as that on which we fought for Pakistan. We took a solemn vow that we
would secure for all areas of the subcontinent where Muslims were in the
majority, the fundamental right of self-determination’. [14]
The Pakistani rulers like their Indian counterpart – had
been and still under the influence of so-called Kashmir’s strategic importance
for national security. Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan as
early as December 1947 wrote to his Indian Counterpart, Jawaharlal Nehru: ‘The
security of Pakistan is bound up with that of Kashmir, and ties of religion,
cultural affinity and economic interdependence bind the two together still
closer.’[15] The Foreign Minister of Pakistan submitted before the Security
Council on 8th February 1950: ‘The whole of the defence of that area ..is based
upon the fact that this line would not be threatened from the flank. If Kashmir
acceded to India, the whole of that flank would be threatened and broken. India
would obtain direct access to the tribal areas and through [them], on to
Afghanistan.’[16] ‘Kashmir
as you will see from this map is like a cap on the head of Pakistan. If, I,
allows India to have this cap on our head; than I am always at the mercy of
India’[17] a description given by Liaquat Ali Khan in his interview with David
Lilienthal.
The Pakistani ruling elite viewed Kashmir further as
economic life-line and supported their argument that the headwaters of
Pakistan’s major rivers and canal system lie in Kashmir. Kashmir’s timber,
fruit, vegetables, woollen products, mineral deposits and hydroelectric
potential had been part of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Sir Zafrullah Khan,
Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister summed up Kashmir’s importance to Pakistan:
‘If Kashmir should accede to India, Pakistan might as well, from both the
economic and the strategic points of view, become a feudatory of India.’ [18]
The over exaggerated security-cum- economic policy emphasis
and the lack of proper understanding of socio historical dynamics, Pakistani
ruling elite invaded Jammu Kashmir, forcing Maharaja to make a premature
decision for accession with India so that he could get military help from
India. The accounts from one of the cabinet member of the Government of
Pakistan Sirdar Shaukat Hyat Khan admitted: ‘Seeing the Maharaja’s and India’s
bad faith, we decided to walk into Kashmir. I was put in charge of the
operation. I asked for the services of Brigadier Sher Khan and Brigadier Akbar,
both of 6/13th Frontier Force and requested that we should be allowed some arms
which we could retrieve from…Lahore Fort….We lost Kashmir through our own
blunders. The people there were jubilant over Pakistan’s actions and wanted to
join it, but the tribes fell back pell-mell.’ [19] Here, again, Pakistani were over
exaggerating and misreading the aspirations and trends of Kashmiri people as
their leader Mr. Jinnah did upon his visit.
Kashmiri were not ready for any accession either India or
Pakistan and so is the case was with Maharaja. He enters into a stand-still
agreement with Pakistan so that after transfer of power in British India,
supply line should continue. In the meantime he wanted to opt for a best
interest that suite to his people and the state, keeping in view the multi
nationality, multi religious dimension of his state. Furthermore; the Jammu
Kashmir was not just one of the princely states as people make to believe.
There was a history of thousands of years of an independent state and it shares
borders with many countries including India and Pakistan.
All the Governments in Islamabad continued to persuade a
policy of self-contradiction. Firstly they had been caught on record while
lying with UN on the question that, Pakistan had not invaded J & K
territory, and, do not have had any troop-presence in that state. The fact
finding mission upon arrival on sport discovered that Pakistan Government lie
to UN Security Council. In short, Pakistan Kashmir policy; starts and end with
lie and deception. The Government of Pakistan claim to be a Muslim State and on
the same argument, they wanted Kashmir to join them. The Prophet of Islam
presented to his people, as per Islamic History, a human social behaviour. He
asked people, if I would say to you that an army is behind this mountain coming
to attack you, would you believe it? The reply from the people was: yes. Then
he said why? The reply was: because you never lie. So, one can see the
contradiction. There is a policy that based on lie and deception could be
everything else but cannot have any relation to the Prophet of Islam.
There are many examples to illustrate Pakistan’s Kashmir
policy a stumbling block in the resolution of the J & K question and source
of the miseries of the people of the state;
First: The Government of Pakistan failed to withdraw it’s
troops from J & K territory commonly known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit
Baltistan gave legitimacy to the Indian policy of Integration.
Second: The occupied territory been divided into Azad
Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. The territory of Azad Kashmir been projected as
Kashmir while Gilgit Baltistan pushed into a mystery land, reflecting the real
motive of Pakistani Government; that is, to grab the land of Jammu and Kashmir.
Third: The Government of Pakistan on every National and
International forum, demanding the right to self determination to the people of
the State of Jammu and Kashmir where as the demand for the same right under
it’s occupation is a serious criminal offence.
Forth: The people of Pakistan by themselves never have a
stable civil and democratic rights. For example: In 1962, Bhutto had decided to
address a student meeting on Kashmir at the Punjab University in Lahore, at
which Tariq Ali was present. Bhutto spoke eloquently enough, but the students
were more concerned with domestic politics. Bhutto realised that students
talking themselves and not giving attention that offended him. He asked the
students: ‘What the hell do you want? I’ll answer your questions.’ Tariq Ali
raised his hand to asked question: ‘We’re all in favour of a democratic
referendum in Kashmir,’ ‘but we would like one in Pakistan as well. Why should
anybody take you seriously on democracy in Kashmir when it doesn’t exist here?’
Bhutto glared angrily at him, but wouldn’t be drawn, “pointing out that he had
only agreed to speak on Kashmir”. [20]
Fifth: The people of Gilgit Baltistan been deprived of their
fundamental basic human and political rights for last sixty years. There is no
media outlet. The economical, cultural and historical rights of the people both
in so-called Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan been violated with impunity. The
territory been used for last sixty years as a propaganda tool to divert the
public attention from the real issues in Pakistan as well as a launching pad
for proxy war against India in IoK. An Indian commentator put it correctly:
‘Pakistan’s oligarchical inheritors of the two nation theory need the Kashmir
conflict to keep themselves in power.
In spite of the above mentioned facts, Pakistani leadership
even today, except few, do not recognise and realise their faulty policy to
correct it and to fulfil the obligations they have had made with UN. To
withdraw their troops from that territory would enable the world to force India
to address the question once for all. Lingering on with Kashmir conflict would
not be any beneficial to Pakistan. Sixty years, is, too long to realise the
faulty and utopian policy that is nothing but driven by territorial greed and
out-dated imperialists urges of expansionism. Stephen Cohen put it correctly:
‘For Pakistani leaders, both civil and military, Kashmir was a useful rallying
cry and a diversion from the daunting task of building a nation out of
disparate parts’. [21]
The political history of Kashmir
spread over centuries, that, is substantiated by the evidence of archaeological
discoveries at Baoursahama, that put Kashmir a contemporaneous to the
Mohenjadaro civilization. The last ruling dynasty, that was Chak of Gilgit, a
north-western Nation of Kashmir State, lost their independence in the hands of
Indian Mughals.
Though there are different
accounts of history, some sources put it 1583 while others 1586 when the
Kashmir had lost it’s sovereignty. While interpreting
historical evidence, one, must not ignore, that, conquerors always distort
facts in order to float a fictional chain of narrations putting conquering
class of a super-natural, divinely origin with new hope of relief rather than
force occupiers, looters and plunderers. That is even happening in today’s
history. The Iraq is a case in point where occupying forces successfully
projected different version of history that was miles away from the real facts.
Historically speaking, the
mountains surrounded Kashmir, had been the best barriers against the invaders
and so are the case was with Mehmood of Gazni who failed to subdue Kashmir,
and, instead he managed to conquered Punjab, Sindh and North India. The Mughal
King of India, Akber, too failed to subdue Kashmir, but, only by using the
famous tools of infiltration to create internal discontent and sectarian
conflicts, enabled his forces to enter the territory of the state resulted a
first ever foreign occupation. A mischievous design of dialogue and
negotiations was initiated by Indian forces to trap Yusuf Shah. In spite of his
wife’s contrary advice, he went to attend the meeting, where, he was arrested
and sent into exile as British did with Mughals the same by sending Zafar into
exile to Burma. Yusuf Shah’s grave, which is in South India, had been a source
of inspiration to the resistance movements in Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah while
himself in exile in South India use to visit that Grave.
The Mughal Empire had begun its
own slow decline by 18th century that gave way to Ahmed Shah Durrani, the
brutal ruler of Afghanistan. Durrani took control in 1752, doubling taxes and
persecuting the embattled Shia minority with a fanatical vigour that shocked
the people. Fifty years of Afghan rule were punctuated by regular clashes
between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The historical event was repeated by fanatic
Afghan under the supervision of Pakistan Army during 1988 where villages been
burnt and looted in Gilgit. The charismatic leader of Punjab, Ranjit Singh,
already triumphant in northern India, by 1819 took Srinagar. Kashmiri
historians regard the 27 years of Punjabi (Sikh) rule that followed as the
worst calamity ever to befall their country. The principal mosque in Srinagar
was closed, others were made the property of the state, cow-slaughter was
prohibited and,
once again, the tax burden became insufferable – unlike the Mughals, Ranjit
Singh taxed the poor. Mass impoverishment led to mass emigration. Kashmiris
fled to the cities of the Punjab: Amritsar, Lahore and Rawalpindi became the
new centres of Kashmiri life and culture. (One of the many positive effects of
this influx was that Kashmiri cooks much improved the local food.)
The first British-Punjab (Sikh)
war in 1846 resulted in a victory for the Company. Jammu Kashmir as under
Punjabi occupation came too, under British occupation. Raja Gulab Singh a
member of Dogra Nation of Southern Kashmir, that was Jammu, was part of Punjabi
Government, had helped British in their war. That is why Punjabi historians
consider Gulab Singh, a traitor. The historical fact is that Jammu Kashmir was
his own homeland, had been occupied by Punjabi. He paid 7.5 million rupees to
the forces of East India Company of Britain and had managed successfully to put
the political history of Jammu Kashmir, back on track. For the sack of
argument, if, one entertains the argument of purely a sale-deed, than why would
he pay money for the territory where the majority population was not his own
co-religious? He could make a deal with Britain for a different territory,
where population could be his own co-religious rather than J&K.
It is the Treaty of Amritsar that
turned the history of J&K possibly back on it’s own course. Though, the
dogra cannot be term as a democratic republic, simply, because there was no
democracy at that time. The autocratic rules of engagement and Empire’s
suppression of populations were the rules of the game. There was no human
rights, no citizen-ship, no right to vote, slaves and masters were the values and
morals of the society. Therefore those who are quick to condemn that British
sold Kashmir, in fact unconsciously and unknowingly reflect the Punjabi version
of historical account. Otherwise, did the British took India themselves as a
Bride or before them the Mughels, Afghan and Punjabi came to Kashmir to attend
a marriage party. It is a non-sense that distort the treaty of Amritsar as
sales deed to undermine the history that gives legitimacy to the demand for
right to self- determination of the people. Therefore a continuity of the
historical movement they enter into new face in 20th century, directly
benefited of Dogra dynasty.
Jammu Kashmir, unlike British
India have had it’s history of struggle. The first ever party that was the
subsequent result of Reading-room groups, Young Man Association and Trade
Unions: The formation of Muslim Conference under the leader-ship of Sheikh
Abdullah. The Religio-cultural diversity of the state and society, forced the
political landscape to distance itself from sectarian exclusive expressions of
their activities, and, rather inclusiveness is only option that can unite the
masses in their march to achieve the goals of a liberated society, peace,
progress and prosperity. This was the result that the Party unanimously decided
to change it’s name of Muslim Conference to National Conference. The National
Conference had approved in 1944, a constitution for an independent Kashmir,
which began: “We the people of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh and the Frontier
regions(Gilgit Baltistan), including Poonch and Chenani
districts, commonly known as Jammu and Kashmir State, in order to perfect our
union in the fullest equality and self-determination, to raise ourselves and
our children for ever from the abyss of oppression and poverty, degradation and
superstition, from medieval darkness and ignorance, into the sunlit valleys of
plenty, ruled by freedom, science and honest toil, in worthy participation of
the historic resurgence of the peoples of the East, and the working masses of
the world, and in determination to make this our country a dazzling gem on the
snowy bosom of Asia, do propose and propound the following constitution of our
state . . .”[22]
The Bolsheviks success in Moscow
and the subsequent announcement came out from Radio Moscow: ‘That from today
on, we will not invade other’s territories and we are withdrawing our troops
from Persia’. This was a decisive turn in the history of mankind that forced
the ideologue of Imperial system to discover new ways to counter the class consciousness.
The Empires identified religion,
the only effective weapon that could counter and divide the class
consciousness. The subject policy was the main reason that British Foreign
Secretary, Arthur Balfour, wrote to Jewish leader Rothschild later become
Lord, popularly known as Balfour declaration of 1917, assuring him of
their future state upon which they formed an effective Jewish Organisation as
well as to counter Waffd Party’s demands, al-ikhwan al-Muslimum was
created in Egypt. The subject policy, too, projected initially by Congress in
India to prepare a ground of a sectarian receptive, leaving no chance for
worker’s unity. The false consciousness that was created by using the force of
ignorance – into sectarian dominated fear – into sectarian hatred – finally
into conflict and violence, ready for a stage-manage political drama to be
unfold.
The Muslim League created from
Congress itself so that natural reflection of the society should be portrayed
as Hindu-Muslim conflict, leaving no room for third opinion. The CPI, too, in
my opinion was the handy works of Empire administration were included, if not
in the list of friends but at least in the book of good guys. The purpose was
simple, to keep an eye on those, whose credibility still suspect in the path to
“God”. That was the back-ground, the British Indian Politics was taking it’s
shape and it’s fall-out was the natural out-come of the situation that J &
K too was unable to escape.
The classified documents now
available for researchers’ shows, that it was in fact British Empire, who had opposed
Baluchistan Independence as well as the resolution of Bannu that was for Pashtunistan.
The reason was that in both cases, the subject leadership were having links
with Communists movements. The National Conference won a landslide victory in
1951 election where there was no such election in so-called Azad Kashmir till
1965. The National Conference government started very progressive reforms that
were according to build Naya Duniya (New Kashmir), the most important of which
was the ‘land to the tiller’ legislation, which destroyed the power of the
landlords, most of whom were Hindu absentees and Muslims. They were allowed to
keep a maximum of 20 acres, provided they worked on the land themselves:
188,775 acres were transferred to 153,399 peasants, while the Government
organised collective farming on 90,000 acres. A law was passed prohibiting the
sale of land to non-Kashmiris, thus preserving the basic topography of the
region. Dozens of new schools and four hospitals were built, and a university
was founded in Srinagar with perhaps the most beautiful location of any campus
in the world.
The economic reforms were
regarded as Communist-inspired in the United States, where they were used to
build support for America’s new ally, Pakistan. A classic example of US
propaganda is Danger in Kashmir, written by Josef Korbel. Korbel had been a Czech UN representative in
Kashmir, before he defected to Washington. His book, was published by
Princeton, in 1954, and, in the second edition, in 1966, Korbel had
acknowledged the ‘substantial help’ of several scholars, including his
daughter, Mrs Madeleine Albright of the Russian Institute at Columbia
University.[23]
The British was so over conscious
of Communist movements that one of his officer while describing the situation
in Gilgit Baltistan, noted that the Russian (USSR) while on the way to Mecca
for Hajj via Gilgit could have local sympathisers that could ultimately turn
into a guerrilla movement. This was the reason that Major Brown mange to dismantle
the independent network that was working locally and brought them directly
under NWFP of Pakistan.
The Indian chauvinists exposed
their real face while using proxy tools of their Imperial masters to conspire
to topple Sheikh Abdullah where British pressure and contribution yet to be
known. Kashmir was erupted. A twenty days long general strike began. A
thousands of people indiscriminately and arbitrary arrested. Indian troops, who
went to J & K under provisional treaty of accession to repel the invaders from
the state territory but instead have had started war with people of Kashmir by
opening repeatedly fire on demonstrators. The National Conference sources
exceed thousands killed: official statistics record 60 deaths. An underground
War Council, organised by Akbar Jehan, the wife of Sheikh Abdullah,
orchestrated demonstrations by women in Srinagar, Baramulla and Sopore. The
resistance movements in Pakistani Occupied side, too, crush ruthlessly. An
armed resistance mostly lead by ex-soldiers of British Indian crushed with full
force by Pakistan Army during 1954/55.
In fact, there was no plan for
any militant movement against Maharaja’s Government during 1947 in Poonch. The
reformist leader of Poonch, who had himself served in British Indian Army as
Captain, Khan Mohammad Khan, invited Maharaja to Rawalakot. The purpose was to
show a support of ex-British Indian Army soldiers who were in thousands,
locally. It was expected that Maharaja’s Government in return would reform to
accept his position as a constitutional head and powers would be transferred to
an elected parliament (Responsible Government). The conspirators manage to
succeed in scaring Maharaja that he might be killed; therefore he cancelled his
visit. This started anger resulted into militancy-cum-sectarian conflict.
Pakistan used the opportunity for a full fledge invasion that force Maharaja
for a premature decision to sign a provisional treaty of accession. In both
parts; the leadership drifted away from the basic point, which was to pursue
the demands as laid down in the provisional treaty of accession that was the
withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the territory so that people of United
Kashmir could decide their future status.
The later evidence shows that
both the Governments and their backers in London and Washington were of the
opinion to maintain the division. As noted above that London was more worried
about the Independent Jammu Kashmir. Kashmiri leadership failed miserably to
understand the calculated traps. For example, Sheikh Abdullah’s meeting with
China’s leaders organised by Pakistan, was a calculated move for a continuity
of London and Washington approval towards Delhi and Islamabad’s Kashmir policy
that was to consider it a bilateral territorial question. The point
we have noted above, that, the British Empire, well before the partition of
India have had comprehensives plans, in case of retreat, how the colonial
territories would be shaped so to continue protect Empire’s interest? It would
not be an over statement to say, that, in fact, it was British Empire the
architect of the cold war.
It was British who had launched
modern American Intelligence.[24] Therefore British secret opposition to
the Blauchistan in spite of Mr. Jinnah’s favourable stance, and opposition to
Pashtun Question, too, both on the pretext that the leadership was having some
kind of links with communist movements. Further more, classified information
shows that it was British pressure resulted to topple Sheikh Abdullah’s
Government on the same pretext that three of his Ministers were known communist
and he himself was too, was suspected of a communist inclination. This
suspicious substantiated further when Sheikh Abdullah’s government introduced
radical land reforms. The irony of the history is that the communist in Delhi
were used under the pretext that Sheikh Abdullah was creating alliance with
American. This is the hall mark of British way-of-doing-things.
There fore partition of India was
not the answer to the problem except transfer of power from London to Delhi and
Karachi. Leaving unsolved the national questions in British India and dividing
on the basis of religion was not a step forward, in fact a step back-ward that
further complicated the fabric of society.
Every passing day is bringing a new innovation,
new development, the fast changes in terms of socio- economic, socio-cultural
and socio-political realities. The old barriers of religion, colour, gender and
kinship are falling apart giving ways to new value, norms and behaviour. The
human history finally on the course towards a liberated society, that would be
bottom-up. The concept of USK exactly the principle of bottom-up that is how we
understand society. The agricultural production by and large also transformed
itself, linking with Industrial production. Therefore the “Force of Economic
necessity” is an essential factor driving people’s movement and uniting them in
a place of work regardless of colour, culture, faith and gender. Therefore
everyone have to learn to work and live with his or her neighbour regardless of
variations and denominations of different of origins. Though, in history, there
was a time when people use to live in isolation. For Portigies, until they did
not had to managed to built a ship in-order to sail it to the bank of Morocco,
in search of India, North African desert was a Hell in their believe system.
Therefore, communities, groups or states, based on exclusive ideologies cannot
work in today’s world. After partition of Indian, the problems are still
exists. In Pakistan, the people of Sindh, Blouchistan, Punjab and Pashtun are not
ready to give-up their national rights. That is why, Pakistan is a federal
state. Same is the case with India. The Israel too, fail to ignore the Arab
population because under International law, the State is responsible to
guarantee the equal rights to all it’s citizens. The Saudi Arabia that is
dominated by the Whaby’s of Njid, also under pressure because of it’s system
still not up to the standard that should guarantee the equal treatment with
women and contract work force.
The United States of Kashmir
The concept of USK is the
continuity of the constitution passed by National Conference during 1944. The
concept of USK based it’s notion of community both in origin and application,
is socially grounded with all possible human variations. Therefore different
Nations and Nationalities, have a common political history. In fact in the
history of Indian sub-Continent, the political term “United States” was first
used by Maullana Hassrat Mohani.
In 1924 on the occasion of Caliph Conference in Allabad, Maullana, proposed the
guiding principle and clear objectives for Congress Party to pledge with, was:
“Complete Liberation of India” and “United States of India”. He was on the
winning side of the argument and most of the Congress working committee was buying his idea but Mr.
Gandhi put counter argument to defeat Mohani.
Now, the history is in front of
us, and we are in a better position to judge the historical events: Had the
Indian National Congress would have had adopted Maullana’s proposals;
Subcontinent could have had avoided human catastrophe that was millions of
massacre? There are no agreed figures, but according to the lowest estimates,
the sectarian prescription of the subcontinent cost nearly a million lives. No
official monument marks the casualties of Partition, there is no official
record of those who perished. No one was held accountable. No war crime, no
crime against humanity. Amrita Pritam, a Punjabi girl, 18-years old, born and
brought up in Lahore but forced to become a refugee, left behind a lament in
which she evoked the medieval Sufi poet and free-thinker, Waris Shah, whose
love-epic ‘Heer-Ranjha’ was (and is) sung in almost every Punjabi village on
both sides of the divide:
I call Waris Shah today:
‘Speak up from your grave,
From your Book of Love unfurl
A new and different page.
One daughter of the Punjab did
scream
You covered our walls with your laments.
Millions of daughters weep today
Millions of daughters weep today
And call out to Waris Shah:
‘Arise you chronicler of our
inner pain
And look now at your Punjab;
The forests are littered with
corpses
And blood flows down the
Chenab.’[25]
Apart from NC constitution, the
complex history of Jammu Kashmir was a demanding factor to explain the national
question. The students of Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza in Pakistani
Universities, started
questioning the scientific basis of Kashmiri struggle for national
emancipation: a demand to clarify the role and future of different nations and
nationalities, because they are of different ethnicity. Further more
Pakistani Student Organisations, especially right wingers, never leave an
opportunity to not exploit the confusion that continued persisted in the
resistance movement of Jammu Kashmir. USK was the answer to those questions,
recognising Kashmir’s history, a history of different nations and nationalities
who have had lived together in one political entity and still persist and sense
of belong to the State (Country).
Politically speaking, there is a
clear difference between Nation, Nationality and State. For example, Pakistan
is a State but there are different Nations such as Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtoon
and Blouch. Similarly, Indian Union comprises of different Nations, that is why
it is known as Indian Union, though on papers. United Kingdom is the State but
because there are differences over Northern Ireland, there fore State is Great
Britain that is from Britannia recognising different nations such as English,
Walsh and Scottish.
There are many examples to illustrate in order to prove the point. The term “member state” or “member states” used in the UN vocabulary, not “member nation” or “member nations”. Further more nationhood and statehood are the social expressions of human life reflect in political terms, which, is, dynamic and ever changing. For example: The ex-leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Britain, Mr. Charles Kennedy encountered with question to identify himself his relation with Scottishness and Britishness. His reply was: I am a Scottish, I am a British and I am the Citizen of Europe. Mr. Kennedy’s narration was correct, a reflection of socio political life that is taking place between Scottish and Britain and between Britain and Europe. The evidence of dynamics ever changing is; that the new citizenship, a European one, is, in the making.
There are many examples to illustrate in order to prove the point. The term “member state” or “member states” used in the UN vocabulary, not “member nation” or “member nations”. Further more nationhood and statehood are the social expressions of human life reflect in political terms, which, is, dynamic and ever changing. For example: The ex-leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Britain, Mr. Charles Kennedy encountered with question to identify himself his relation with Scottishness and Britishness. His reply was: I am a Scottish, I am a British and I am the Citizen of Europe. Mr. Kennedy’s narration was correct, a reflection of socio political life that is taking place between Scottish and Britain and between Britain and Europe. The evidence of dynamics ever changing is; that the new citizenship, a European one, is, in the making.
The concept of USK is to
recognise the dynamics of the society from bottom-up, that is how we understand
the building-blocks of a society and political responses should be in the same
way that is to recognising life as socially grounded reality? Therefore USK would
pave the way for a fast inter-action between the population of it’s neighbours.
The free
access to people’s socio-economical socio-cultural activities and free
movements of goods and services with improved infrastructure, would be highly
contributing factor between the people of North Western India, Northern
Pakistan, Western China, Central Asia and to some extent Afghanistan. We see
the ethnicity that over-lap between sovereign states, a strength rather than
weakness. The over-lapping ethnicity with free movement in socio-economical
inter-action, would pave the way as integrating factor. That is what happening
in Europe, but in spite of the fact that Arab League was formed before European
Union still failed to understand to recognise the scientific basis of a
society, left them behind in the regional progress.All the Nations and Nationalities agreed on one point, that is : No to division. This "NO" is from Poonch (Azad Kashmir), Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit. There are difference on the point that some wants union with India, others with Pakistan and a majority wants the restoration of it’s historical unity. Those, who want union with India, driven by the fear of the domination by bigger nations, similarly those who wants union with Pakistan, driven by sectarian hatred and an inconsistency of a mind-set with the pace of change and the modern state system. All the political Parties of the State, have openly supported the idea of USK, except few who are still reluctant, because of third worlds experience where societies still driven by the forces of sectarian hatred, narrow mindedness and violent behaviour.
An open debate, cultural
exchanges, close cooperation in business and socialisation would clarify the
situation. Third World Societies don’t have to stay third-world for ever. It is
time to change. That is why, Kashmir, is, offering advance ideas to address
it’s political landscape? This would be a test case for the change as our
four-fathers gathered in 1944 and declared from the platform of National
Conference “to raise ourselves and our children for ever from the abyss of
oppression and poverty, degradation and superstition, from medieval darkness
and ignorance, into the sunlit valleys of plenty, ruled by freedom, science and
honest toil”. END
References: 1: Ayesha Jalal ‘The Terrible
Beauty is Torn – Kashmir Scars’. The New Republic, 23 July 1990. no.4. vol.203.
pp. 17-20 2: Dr. Rajendra Prasad: Correspondence And Select Documents. Vol. 15
(New Delhi: 1991). Pp.361-2, Ed. By V. Choudhary. 3: The History of struggle
for Freedom in Kashmir by P.N.Bazaz (published by Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad: 1976) p.695 4: Congress Presidential Addresses, vol.5 (New Delhi:
1989) p.183 by A.M. Zaidi. 5: Nehru’s remarks over Kashmir while addressing
Parliament quoted in Rise of Communism in Kashmir (Kashmir Democratic Union,
Delhi: 1952 P.15. 6: The History of Kashmir by P.N. Bazaz P.695. 7: Indian
Parliament Debates vol.1 part 2. 1957 col.678 8: The Hindustan Times 7
September 1953. The Times of India 19 September 1953; The Statesman, 1 and 20
September 1953. 9: CPI member Mrs. Renu Chakravarti’s speech in Lok Sabha on 20
March 1957. Lok Sabha Debates. Vol.1 part 2 1957, cols 121-2 also Sundaraiya’s
statement of 6 June 1952 in Rise of Communism in Kashmir P.15. 10: The Testament
of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, P.70 11: India 1947-50, vol.1, Internal Affairs
(Oxford: 1959) p.371 S.L. Poplai ed., 12: Caravan (New Delhi) February 1950,
Kashmir issue no.41, P-67 13: The Daily Dawn, 31 October 1947 14: M. Brecher,
The Struggle for Kashmir P-52 15: S.L. Poplai ed. India 1947-50, P-395 16: M.
Brecher, The Struggle in Kashmir. P-47 17: D. Lilienthal. ‘Another Korea in the
Making’ Colliers (New York) 4 August 1951, P-57 18: The Struggle in Kashmir by
M. Brecher P-49 19: Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan, The Nation that lost its Soul:
Memoirs of Sirdar Shaukat Hayat Khan (Lahore 1995) 20: Bitter Chill of Winter
by Tariq Ali P-23 21: S.P. Cohen, ‘Kashmir: The Roads Ahead’ S.P. Cohen
ed..South Asia After the Cold War: International Perspectives (ACDIS Conference
Proceedings, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1992). 22: Bitter
Chill of Winter by Tariq Ali P-19 23: ibid P20 24: Europe or the US? Britain
must choose, by William Pfaff. The Daily Observer London, 18 July 2004, p-21.
25: Bitter Chill of Winter by Tariq Ali p-16
No comments:
Post a Comment