The festering sore Kashmiris And The Great Indian Civilization ~ a c bose WO rather little-noticed but significant developments took place in the third week of June, both in relation to the festering Kashmir problem. It is not definite whether the second one was a reaction to the first; but those who had decided on the second might have, or at least should have, taken note of what had happened in Srinagar a few days earlier. At an official gathering of Kashmir University, attended by the Chancellor and several other luminaries, many students and even teachers remained seated while the national anthem was being played. This was not the first time that such disrespect was deliberately demonstrated; but it was certainly the latest, and at a time when we are articulating full-throated claims about the improved situation in Kashmir. Within a few days, as if to rub salt on the Kashmiri wound, it was announced by the Narendra Modi camp that he would start his electoral campaign outside Gujarat at Madhopur near Pathankot on 23 June. This is the place from where Shyama Prasad Mukherjee had started his final journey into J&K 63 years ago, defying the hated ‘permit system’ that, since 1942, had prevented free entry of outsiders into this state. This marked the start of the agitation for the abolition of the ‘special status’ tag for the state, one that was guaranteed by Article 370 (originally passed on 17 October 1948 as Article 306/A) of the Constitution. It bears recall that it was Sardar Patel who, in Nehru’s absence, moved the Bill on 17 October, and it was passed virtually unanimously ~ Hasrat Mohani being the sole dissenter ~ with Dr SP Mukherjee present in the House as the cabinet minister for commerce and industry. None of them was anti-nationalist; none among them was interested in weakening newly-independent India. They were realists who appreciated the actual situation, and tried to make the best of it in India’s interest ~ of her independence, secularism, and liberal democracy. They knew that accession to India was not the first choice of probably the majority of this state, at least of the Kashmiris. Apparently, they were happy with their Maharaja’s decision to sit on the fence. It was the mayhem unleashed by the Pak-sponsored raiders that forced the Maharaja and the Kashmiris to seek India’s protection, and accession to the Indian Union was the minimum price they were then prepared to pay under duress. So, once the raiders had been driven out, and their safety ensured the Kashmiris wanted. and still want, to be left alone in their ‘earthly paradise’. They had bought their safety by entrusting to India their defence, communications, and external relations as per the Instrument of Accession, but were determined not to part with any more. Hence, almost unanimously they are firm in their demand for ‘special status’, and Article 370 was believed to the Lakhsman Rekha that neither of the parties would ever cross. Their reluctance to merge with the Indian union, like other princely states, was, and is, not because they are anti-Indians, but because, like the Nagas, Mizos and many other tribes in the North-east, they are Indians with a difference. They value their independent identity only next to security. About 40 years ago, some elderly Kashmiri Pundit scholars had told me that had Kashmir not been Islamised a Hindu Kashmir would never have formed a part of India, but would have chosen to stay as a friendly neighbour, like Hindu Nepal and Buddhist Bhutan. In fact, both Kashmiri Pundits and Muslims are proudly conscious of their differences with those south of the Pir Panchal in their spoken language, dietary habits, dress, religious festivals and even in rituals and beliefs. Both the communities are so very conscious of their commonality and differences with others that communal peace was not even questioned in the Valley when in 1947-48 thousands of Muslims were butchered in the Jammu region, and India and Pakistan fought bitterly in September 1965 and in December 1971. Kashmiris are certainly members of the great Indian civilization that extends from Kabul to Cambodia and Bali, but that does not mean that the Nepalese, the Mauritians, and the Sinhalese would prefer to join the Indian union, and to lose their identity. However, our hyper-nationalism, provoked by the loss of territory that Partition meant for us, soon overtook our thought process and policies. Even Nehru, the liberal democrat, dreamt of the day when Bengalis, Tamils, Kashmiris etc. would cease to be their traditional selves, and become full-fledged Indians, and such barriers as Article 370 would be wished away. That fear always haunted the Kashmiris, but became a reality when, despite their special status, their hero and head of government, Sheikh Abdullah, was summarily dismissed, arrested, and detained without trial, with minor breaks, for 22 years ~ a special treatment not meted out to any other chief minister so far. Since then, despite signs of Kashmiri resentment ~ sullen for a generation and violent later ~ the spirit of Article 370 has been systematically destroyed till today it has become almost unrecognisable by those who had once fought for it. Today it exists mainly on paper. Still, it is of great symbolic value for most Kashmiris just as the Queen’s proclamation of November 1858 was for the early generations of our freedom fighters, and they sharply react to any suggestion of abolition of this Article. The BJP’s electoral campaign started with demands for its abolition, apparently to curry favour with the chauvinists among us by consciously antagonising the Kashmiris further, just as the hasty execution of Afzal Guru had done. The more we try to draw the Kashmiris nearer to the rest of India, legally and administratively, the more we add to the emotional distance between Srinagar and Delhi. Ruling an unwilling people is always a highly expensive affair, and proves to be a liability in times of crisis. Finally, having lived among Kashmiris for nearly 40 years, I can confidently assert that hardly anyone among them is pro-Pakistani. They have very bad memories of Pathan rule, and consider themselves culturally superior to Punjabis and Pathans. They only seek the maximum of autonomy, if not full azadi, as was guaranteed to them by the Instrument of Accession and Article 370. If they demonstrate pro-Pakistan feelings, it is only to counter the unwelcome Indian presence flaunted through the AFSPA and bunkers near most street corners. They love Pakistan only as much as Netaji loved Germany and Japan... and not to replace the British. They can be integrated with the mosaic of the Indian nation, but they hate to be assimilated. The writer is retired Head of the Department of History, Jammu University ----------------- N.Krishnan • 15 hours ago The book on Sardar Patel written by Mr.Nair, mentions that there was total opposition to enact Article 370[ which was conceived by Nehru in collusion with Abdullah], among the MPs. Nehru who was abroad at the time bill was to be introduced in the Parliament , and who had had unseemly scuffle with Patel earlier on Hyderabad issue , requested Patel to convince the MPS and have the bill passed. Patel in all his magnanimity persuaded the MPs to have the bill passed. How come that the author does not refer to this inconvenient episode?
Posted on: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:03:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015