In search of the first martyr

There are three generations of martyrs which must not be forgotten, Dr. Sheikh Showkat Hussain questions the very authenticity of documenting Robert Thorpe as the first martyr

The question as to who is the first martyr of Kashmir has intrigued Kashmiris in general and a student of Kashmir history in particular. Robert Thorpe is believed to be the first in this chain of martyrs. About the biography and the contribution of Thorpe we need to authenticate the details. The veracity of the very statement of his being the first martyr can be put to a profound historical analysis. This forms the subject of this article whereby the study reveals some more facts which we must not forget for seeking a better understanding of history. A study, which the author carried out reveals that prior to Thorpe’s death we had three generations of martyrs.

First generation:
In 1846 Britishers sold Kashmir valley to Maharaja Gulab Singh. Sheikh Imamudin the last governor of Sikh dynasty to Kashmir resisted this deal with the support of natives. There was a direct confrontation between Kashmiris supporting Sheikh Imamudin and the army of Gulab Singh in Srinagar. The Gulab Singh’s army was defeated near Sheikh Bagh and compelled to retreat from Kashmir. Kashmir remained independent for a period of six months. Those who got martyred in the battle of Sheikh Bagh were buried in vicinity of Sheikh Imamudin’s residence and the area was named as Saheed Gunj. The graves disappeared with the passage of time but the name Saheed Gunj still continues to be there. The word Saheed Gunj should have been sufficient to provoke us to go for a research on raison detre of this name but our self styled historians are pre occupied in providing grist to the mill of Kashmiriyat and syncretism. For others history of Saudi Kings remained a priority. Britishers came to the rescue of Gulab Singh and dispatched their army for his support. The natives were no match to the British army Sheikh Imamudin had to leave Kashmir and Gulab Singh got possession of Kashmir in November 1846.

Second generation:
With the advent of Gulab Singh and departure of Imamudin people of the valley were coerced to submission. Gulab Singh faced another rebellion. Muslims of Poonch refused to accept his rule. He ruthlessly suppressed this rebellion. In his Travels, Vigne narrates that some of the rebels were flayed alive “under his own eyes…He ordered one or two of the skins to be stuffed with straw. The figures were then planted on the wayside so that passers by might see it. Gulab Singh called his sons attention to it and told him to take a lesson in the art of governing”. The Poonch thus contributed second generation of Kashmiri martyrs against dynastic rule of Gulab Singh.

Third generation:
Gulab Singh was succeeded by Raja Ranbir Singh in 1857. It was during his times that Robert Thorpe came to Kashmir. He narrates an incident when Shalbafs of down town Srinagar assembled out side the house of Raj Kak Dhar. Dhar was minister of Ranbir Singh and notorious for his oppressive policies. The Shalbafs carried a mock coffin of Raj Kak. Dhar summoned three to five hundred police men to disperse them. During the ensuing stampede several Shalbafs were drowned in Zaldagar kanal. There are some reports which suggests that about forty shalbafs died in this stampede but according to Thorpe the number is six. Raj Kak Dhar died within few months of this mock funeral.

Robert Thorpe
After defeating Sikhs, Britishers passed on Kashmir to Gulab Sigh. Primary reason for conferring title of the state upon Gulab Singh was that Britishers didn’t wish to overburden themselves with defense of inhospitable terrain of Jammu and Kashmir. They were pre-occupied with consolidating their power in Punjab. Once they controlled Punjab they were scared of Russian expansion in Central Asia. Britishers developed a new interest in J&K wanted to get a pretext for intervention. For this purpose they dispatched a fact finding mission to Kashmir. Gulab Singh managed to portray a better image of his administration with the help of Raj Kak Dhar. Britishers motivated some locals to come forward with materials on misgovernment on the part of Dogras. Kashmiri Pandits being prime beneficiaries of his rule were siding with Maharaja. Muslims being uneducated were unable to render this job. Britishers handed over the assignment to some of their own nationals. These included some missionaries and army officers. Robert Thorpe was one of them. Robert Thorpe prepared a detailed account of sufferings and miseries of Kashmiris in the form of a book “Kashmir Misgovernment”. He did so not because he was worried about Kashmiris, but to provide a justification for British intervention. The book was product of his commitment to expansion of the British Empire. He wanted them to take over control of the state directly. Britishers were scared of direct intervention lest it may lead to an open confrontation with Russians who were in vicinities of the state. Thorpe tried to pacify these fears. He pleaded that there was no scope for such an eventuality as relations between Britain and Russia “will be those of peace, not war, and that we shall, at no distant period, so-cooperate with her in spreading the blessings of civilization and settled Government among oppressed peoples and savage tribes…… an amicable division between Russian and England is quite practicable. What has not been conquered by one power might with out any opposition be conquered by the other.” Thorpe died in mysterious circumstances. It was alleged that his death was because of poisoning but a British doctor who examined his dead body ruled out poisoning and attributed it to rupture of heart a natural reason. The work of Robert Thorpe achieved the objective for which it was written. Maharaja Ranbir Singh was made to accept deputation of a British Resident to Kashmir. Soon after his death resident assumed his functions influencing almost all functions of the Dogra dynasty including the one that landed Kashmir into lap of India in 1947.
After going through these accounts one can easily understand who were the first martyr’s of Kashmiri resistance against the dynastic rule of Gulab Singh and his progeny. It were none other than the martyr’s of Saheed Gunj, Poonch and Shalbafs of down town Srinagar. Why then portrayal of Robert Thorpe? Inspite of the fact that his death remains a mystery and his loyalties were to none other than the British imperialism? Is it reflection of our mental slavery or true depiction of a Kashmiri proverb “Kashur Chu Par Daruk”. Whatever be the reason it speaks volumes about our alienation from our own self, our own history and roots of Kashmir resistance movement. If none of the above is true then it can be nothing other than an attempt to distort our history and portray those who have sold us and have been instrumental in facilitating our occupation as our emancipators .

UN Mission: A Minaret of Hope

Presence of the mission symbolizes the commitment of the international community that it will not allow India and Pakistan to divide Kashmir among themselves

DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

India and Pakistan clashed on Tuesday, 22nd January 2013 in UN on the relevance and mandate of United Nations Military observer group in Kashmir. It is not for the first time that India and Pakistan have clashed on the relevance and mandate of the UN observers group. Same type of clashes occurred soon after Shimla Agreement of 1972. After the agreement India formally requested UN to withdraw its observer’s mission from Kashmir. Indian demand was based on the ground that the Cease Fire Line which it was supposed to monitor has been replaced by the Line of Control (LoC) and the parties have agreed to resolve all their mutual issues including Jammu and Kashmir bilaterally. United Nations refused to oblige India and made it clear that the decision to depute military observers’ group in Kashmir has been taken by the Security Council and it’s only the Security Council which can decide about the future of this group. Since India is against any discussions on Kashmir issue in United Nations it didn’t wish the issue to be raised within the council thus the observers’ mission continues to be in Kashmir. India however refused to cooperate with the group since 1972 while Pakistan continues to facilitate the monitoring activities of the group on its side of the LoC. Since the issue has cropped up at this juncture it will not be out of place to have a look on United Nations observer group’s activities and its implications on Kashmir issue as such.
After securing instrument of accession from Maharaja in October 1947 India proceeded to United Nations in January 1948 on account of the perception it will be impossible for it to sustain a military operation in Kashmir which remained inaccessible for 6 months because of snow and cold weather. India approached the United Nations under Chapter VI of the UN charter. United Nations adopted a resolution establishing United Nations’ Commission for India and Pakistan to investigate and mediate the dispute. In April 1948 by its resolution the Security Council decided to enlarge the membership of UNCIP and to recommend various measures including use of observers to stop fighting. In 1949 as a result of mediation of the group India and Pakistan signed Karachi agreement establishing a Cease Fire Line to be supervised by the observers. In 1949 following the termination of UNCIP the Security Council through its resolution decided that United Nations observer group should continue to supervise and monitor the ceasefire in Kashmir. Its assignments included observance, reporting, investigation and submission of its findings to the Secretary General. Presence of UN observers group in Kashmir has invoked a lot of interest not only because of its functions but also because of certain legal issues which are associated with its presence. First and foremost among these issues remains the nature of UN involvement in Kashmir. No doubt United Nations was approached by India under Chapter VI. Under this chapter, however, United Nations does not have any mandate to depute military observers’ mission at any place. It’s only Chapter VII of the UN charter which authorizes United Nations to depute military observers’ mission. So it’s obvious that UN engagement in Kashmir have not been confined to Chapter VI of the Charter under which it was approached by India but also other portions of the UN charter including Chapter VII. This is in line with the perception that once a forum whether judicial or non-judicial is approached by a party for certain remedies the forum itself can award any other remedies relevant to the case at its disposal. No doubt it was Karachi agreement between India and Pakistan that brought into existence the Cease Fire Line. The agreement however could not create an obligation of deputation of military observers’ mission for United Nations. The United Nations once approached did act in accordance with its charter which under Chapter VII provided for deputation of a military mission anywhere. This opinion is not a fiction of imagination of author of this piece but an opinion which has been held by Higgins & Roselyn, and Bowett, two renowned authorities on the subject of peacekeeping by United Nations. Those who have been arguing that United Nations couldn’t act decisively in context of Kashmir because the Issue was referred to it under Chapter VI by India forget that the United Nations on several occasions tried to act decisively on the issue but couldn’t do so because of the Veto of the Soviet Union.  Since 1972 India has been demanding withdrawal of United Nations Observers’ Group from Kashmir on the ground that Shimla agreement has made the issue bilateral. Given the fact that power of withdrawal exclusively remains vested with the UN Security Council where India doesn’t wish the Kashmir issue to be debated it was obvious that new efforts of India to get the mission out of Kashmir were destined to fail. Clarification of the Secretary General has confirmed it. Insistence of India on this account will surely lead to a renewed discourse of Kashmir issue in United Nations. United Nation Observers Group has thus stuck within the throat of India same way as they depict the situation of a small snake who wishes to digest a prey without being able to swallow it or vomit it back. For ordinary Kashmiris the observers’ mission in Srinagar symbolizes a minaret of hope towards which they rush whenever they are in acute distress with the hope that world community has not abandoned them. Presence of the mission also symbolizes commitment of the international community that it will not allow India and Pakistan to divide Kashmir among themselves irrespective of the wishes of its people. Presence of the Observers Mission with its offices in Delhi, Rawalpindi, Muzzafarabad and Srinagar remain a reminder to the parties concerned that Kashmir is yet been disposed off in accordance with the wishes of its people and United Nations is fully authorized to take an action in this regard even under Chapter VII of its Charter. Such a decisive action could not be possible in past because of cold war and rivalry between Veto holders within Security Council. Our leadership however has failed to pursue for enhancement of mandate of the mission to the monitoring of human rights abuses which it could have done.

TYRIST WITH OFFICIAL APPROACH TO KASHMIR HISTORY

Dr.Sheikh Showkat Hussain

After Indian forces landed in Kashmir on 27^th October 1947 Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah told us that we have gained independence after four centuries of subjugation.. This led the pro-establishment intellectuals to develop a paradigm within which along with Dogra and Sikh rule, Afghan and Mughal periods came within the definition of colonial rule for Kashmir. This despite the fact that it were Kashmiris who invited Mughals and Afghans to Kashmir to get rid of repressive regimes. This despite the fact that Kashmiris rallied around the last Sikh governor.Imamud-din to oppose the advent of British supported Dogra ruler Gulab Singh. There was another paradox associated with this approach. We cherished Mughal gardens on one hand and were to believe that Mughal rule in Kashmir was an alien rule. It was a similar paradox which infested Hindu nationalists of India who on one side cherished Taj Mahal as symbol of India’s beauty on the other hand resorted to demolition of Babri Masjid perceiving it to be a symbol of foreign subjugation. . One wonders why real symbols of subjugation are used with pride where as Mughal monuments perceived to be symbols of alien occupation by Hindu radicals. Rajtarangni mentions that the type of Dhoti used in north India was imposed by Lalta Datya upon north Indian population on his conquest.  When I raised these questions I was told that Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs and Dogras all were outsiders therefore I have to perceive their epoch’s as the eras of subjugation for Kashmir. It created one more question that was equally difficult to answer. How Dogra rule could be perceived as alien colonial rule when Dogra’s happened to be natives of the state. And if nativity of rulers is the sole criteria of ascertaining whether a particular period was colonial rule or non colonial rule then this criteria has to be extended to the pre Mughal era as well. I proceeded to ascertain nativity of pre-mughal rulers. All those whom I cherished had a foreign nativity.Budshah and Shahmeers were from Swat, Laltadatiya from Kangra and Kanishk was a Turkman.The logic that made Afghan and Mughal era as alien could proceed further back and was in fact extended by one Mr.Hangloo in a write up in Greater Kashmir who mentioned that subjugation of Kashmir started with the advent of Muryans because they were the ones who invaded Kashmir thus landed Kashmir into era of subordination. I pondered upon this xenophobic approach and applied the same to pre Mauryan era. When I proceeded with it I found no reason for not extending the era of occupation of Kashmir to the advent of Kashaprishi.  Kashaprishi according to both Rajtarangni and Nilmatpurana had come from outside and sought refuge of Nilnag the naga ruler of Kashmir .Thus paving way for an era of Aryan domination in Kashmir. I started to feel that our era of Kashmir history is pre Kashaprishi era. It was era of Nagas and Pischachas. I came to know through books of Anthropology that Nagas were pre-Aryan migrants from North-West. Every iota of my history got erased I was left with no history and no past of my own. I was bereft of any history of mine. Our poets plunged into self denial to such an extent that Syed Ali Hamdani (RA) didn’t qualify to be included within the anthem of our premier educational institution The Kashmir University, though all my religo-cultural traits, arts and modes of living were moulded by him. It was a complete alienation from my self and my past. Those who don’t have a past cant have a future.

 I turned to the academicians of history for rescue. What they provided to me were certain constructs created to serve and perpetuate the status quo. Status quo was being challenged on the basis of Pan Islamism. Indian establishment needed an antidote to blunt this challenge. Through these constructs of Kashmiriyat syncretism and Sufism, the Darbari “historians” sought to provide this antidote in lieu of petty favors. Kashmir was unfamiliar with this terminology prior to advent of Indian rule. Kashmiri Islam and Sufism were portrayed to be different from Islam followed elsewhere. The greatest Kashmiri Sufi, Sheikh Noor-u-din wali attributed origin of Reshi Silsila of mysticism to the Prophet (SAW) through Moulana Rumi and Owaise Karni. This portrayal of Kashmir History was based on a false assumption that Sufi version of Islam is closer to secularism thus positive towards Indian Nationalism. History communicates altogether a different story. The Conformist Deobandis in the sub-continent were in forefront of Indian national movement whereas pro Sufi Barely School was supporting Pakistan movement. I could not be rescued by these academicians.

Being student of International Law, I was familiar with the fact that it was only in 1919 that conquest became an unlawful mode of acquisition of territory through Article 10 of The Covenant of League of Nations. Nationality and Passport are a recent phenomenon. Whole of the world prior to past two centuries was open and globalized the way some aspire to see it again through the new phenomenon of globalization. The parochialism that was inducted into our outlook with emergence of Nationalism was not there .There was no trace of linguistic chauvinism either. Staunch Hindu Shivaji wrote in Persian. Same was done by Gulab Singh. He used Persian to write his autobiography “Gulab Nama” and deed of Hindu endowments Dharmath Trust. They were free from linguistic chauvinism introduced to us through Parochial-Nationalism.

When I looked at my history through this normative framework I felt that my previous approach was wrong. Sheikh Abdullah wanted me to look at previous epochs of history through the prism of present day notions of Nationalism. Realizing this I started to look at history from a different perspective. Whosoever came to Kashmir in previous epochs did a right thing in view of the normative framework of those times. I had to look upon them from the perspective of their governance rather than nativity. The criterion of good or bad rulers was the extent to which these  rulers had been benevolent or oppressive towards this land and its people. Justice or  Adle thus became the criteria of assessment good or bad governance . Once I adopted this approach, I started to own everything good and just.  It became my legacy. I started to abhor every tormentor  native or alien. At once whole of rich heritage of Kashmir became part of my history. Experience also contributed to the same understanding. The so called era of “freedom” since 1947 landed me in to a system which is accredited with electoral frauds(Bipinchandra),genocide and Ethnic cleansing of lakhs of my co-religionists in Jammu region, rapes ravaging from Shopian to Kunanposhipur and Checksadipora, deceit both at National and International level compelling me to observe 27^th October, the day Indian forces landed in Kashmir  as blackest day of my history. You find on this day every lane of Kashmir deserted every class room empty and every human being mourning the so called day of deliverance.

Summary of a presentation made in a seminar of History Department, University of Kashmir

My Self, My History

The book slated to be released tomorrow, Saturday, is an attempt to retrieve the people’s history of Kashmir

BOOK REVIEW by DR SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

Book: KASHMIRI MUSLIMS: A Historical out Line
Author: Muzzaffar Ahmad Khan,
Publisher: Humanizer Publications, Srinagar
Year: 2012

Kashmir has a long history of its own. The history dates back to pre-historic Paleolithic and Neolithic eras. Despite having earliest recorded classical sources as compared to other parts of the sub-continent predominant portion of the Kashmiri population has received a raw deal at the hands of those who have contributed to the historiography of Kashmir. Rajthrangni remains counterpart of the Firdausi’s Shahnama, the author is more concerned about language rather than authenticity of history. He Indianises every historical event and person to suit Sanskrit linguistic flavor.  Nilmat Purana is more oriented towards religion. Travelers of classical times Hiuen tSang, Marco Polo and Al-Beruni too project a hazy view of Kashmir. Medieval historians, be they Pandits like Shiriwar or biographers like Jahangir remain more focused on rulers rather than the population. The missionaries like Vigne and Biscoe too projected a negative view of the natives. Same remains true about Civil servants like Lawrence. Problem with these historians has been that they remained in close proximity and relied upon briefs of those who traditionally monopolized white collar jobs of Kashmir and always became willing collaborators of every tormentor of the majority. Unfortunately, the ones involved in hospitality of these foreigners depicted a character that was perceived to be embodiment of Kashmiri population in general and as a confirmation of maligned versions of Kashmiri character communicated to them by the translators.
 Attempts of Kashmiri historians too were influenced by the distortions made by native Pandits and others under their influence. This situation demanded a re-appraisal of Kashmir history from Muslim perspective. Though the job was done to some extent by GMD Sofi and Mohammad Din Fauq their works remain old and bereft of inputs made through recent researches. A valuable effort towards it has  also been made  by Prof. Abdul Ahad. The job demands a paradigm shift. Professor Muzzaffar Khan has precisely done this in his monumental work “Kashmiri Muslims.” The book comprises two volumes of more than five hundred pages each. The book is a treasure not only in terms of its content but also in context of its sources. The author not only relies on sources of Kashmir history but also history of its vicinities to explore material for his research. The work should have been done by the history departments of Kashmir University. The department however seems to be pre-occupied with Sufism and its impact upon Kashmiri life rather than developing new paradigms in the realm of history writing. In this respect the department didn’t proceed beyond   Kashmir under sultans of Professor Muheeb-Ul-Hassan.
                           Professor Muzzaffar Khan has looked at Muslim history of Kashmir from anthropological, linguistic, religious and cultural angles. He has deconstructed various myths that had been created as a result of state sponsored biased history. The myth that Kashmiris prior to advent of Islam were adherents of Hindu faith, happened to be Brahmans and natives had all together vanished has effectively been exposed by the learned author. The author then proceeds to analyze  situation  of the Muslims during the rule of various dynasties, whether these remained  local Sultans, Mughals, Pathans, Sikhs or Dogras. The author has effectively depicted the fact that so called periods of oppression of the minority communities was results of feuds between the exploiting classes of which the minority remained a part and had nothing to do with the majority community. The author has highlighted the misrule of Chaks and the reasons that led Kashmiris to seek support from Mughals in order to get rid of the despotism to which Chaks subjected them. The exploitation and plunder to which Kashmiris were subjected during Sikh and Dogra rule and role of local collaborates in this pursuit too has been highlighted.
Second volume of this monumental work concentrates on certain thematic issues confronting the Muslim majority of Kashmir. Apart from their struggle against oppression in post and prior 1931 eras it includes an in-depth portrayal of Shia- Sunni, Muslims-Hindus relations and exposition of mismanagement to which Muslims have been subjected during the periods of democratic despotism which Kashmir has witnessed after 1947.The concoctions like Kashmiryat and the myth of Jesus in Kashmir too have been analysed.  The book along with recent interpretation of the poetry of Sheikh-Ul-Alam by Professor Ghulam Muhammad Shaad should be viewed as path breaking attempts aimed at projection of the subject from the Muslim point of view. These attempts need to be applauded in view of the fact that every aspect of our life remains target of state sponsored manipulations. The author however seems to have been unable to deconstruct the projected notions in two aspects. First pertains to portrayal of Reshis as vegetarians and the ones who remained secluded from social life. This narrative may be true about few Reshis but remains concoction so far as the leading Reshi order is concerned. Non vegetarian dishes are offered, relished and consumed on shrines of Sheikh Noor-Ud-Din, Sheikh Zain-Ud-Din and Sheikh Pyaam-Ud-Din and their poetry depicts a different connotation than that has been continuously propagated.
Grimut chenus dodh gave khenas, maaz desheth loubh keazi henas, batun huind soochar dreint kate aav
  The second important area where the author has failed to depart from the older constructs remains projection of magnitude of prostitution in Kashmir. The exaggerated versions are nothing but impressions prepared by non-natives under the influence of those who have been always looking for avenues of maligning Kashmiri Muslim majority. The book otherwise remains a great work which deserve publication from a well established international publishing house and inclusion within prescribed texts at masters level. The book needs to be published on other side of Line of control as well so that it serves the needs of researchers and students there. 

 Published in Greater Kashmir dated 12 October, 2012 

Building Bridges with Resurgent Islam

S M Krishna's recent meet with Muslim Brotherhood chief speaks volumes

HORIZONS BY DR.SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

During his trip to Egypt, Indian Foreign minister, S M Krishna made it a point to meet the chief of Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. This is a symbolic gesture in pursuit of coming to terms with emerging realities of the Muslim world. But facts which confront the globe in general and India in particular demand that these endeavors should go beyond symbolism. Ever since Muslim world was overtaken by the West in the era of colonization it triggered divergent trends among Muslims. Those who perceived Western imperialism to be  a new manifestation of old Alexandrian dream of the globe under Western superiority opted an approach of absolute rejection towards everything Western. There were others who understood ascendance of the West as a logical consequence of the renaissance and wanted a similar process within Muslim community. They wanted the Muslim world to imbibe positives of the West in order to match it. The former approach was symbolized by Jamal din Afghani internationally and Deoband locally. Present day Taliban remain a vestige of this thought. The latter approach remained the guiding principle of Aligarh movement led by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Both these approaches suffered from a deficit of deeper understanding of the West and can be described as knee jerk reactions to an unanticipated domination of the colonial powers. Turkey the seat of Ottoman Khilafat under Kamal Ataturk became laboratory for experimentation of the second approach.
 Both the rejectionist and the positive approaches however metamorphosed into a new response which had better understanding of the West as well as Islam in the thought process of Sir Muhammad Iqbal. He evaluated the Western thought process and identified the areas that could be opted and the areas which didn't suit the basic tenants of Islamic Civilization. Iqbal represented a matured synthesis of previous two approaches. Essence of his thought was for renaissance of ummah within the framework of original sources of Islam and reinterpreting the same in context of space and time of modern era. Thoughts of Iqbal however remained poetic abstractions.  Rashid Ridah advocated similar ideas through his Almanar in the Arab World.    Essence of this thought process was developed in the form of systematic doctrine by Abul Ala Maudoodi in the sub continent and Hassan al Bana in Egypt.
They laid down the foundation of two simultaneous Islamic movements based on revival of the spirit of ijtihad (reinterpretation) and jihad (efforts for implementation). The thought of Ikhwan and Jamaa’t catalyzed similar movements in other parts of the Muslim world. Ideology of these remained same. The thrust of these movements however, to a great extent was oriented by the local situations which they confronted.  For quite some time they were not taken seriously by the global powers. At times however, they were perceived as tools of fighting the rival ideology during cold war era. Soviets and Chinese were positive towards Iranian revolutionaries perceiving them to be their own instruments in letting down a pro -Western regime of Raza Shah Phalvi. The West too was supportive of Islamists while they were fighting the regimes owing allegiance to socialist Ideology. During cold war most of the dictators in Middle East were in proximity of Soviets. It was logical for the West to be positive towards any opposition against them. This proximity reached to its climax during Afghan war.
Arab Spring has made it clear that Islam as an ideology and the way of life has become a dominant discourse and a force within the Muslim world. Turkey is abandoning Kamalism and is in process of rediscovering its Ottoman & Islamic roots. 
       India can' t remain indifferent to this emerging reality. Meeting of Krishna with Muslim Brotherhood chief must be seen in this backdrop. The question however remains whether this symbolic effort will suffice to understand and deal with this phenomenon. Whatever be estimation of the Indian foreign office skepticism is likely to dominate the relations between India and Islamic Middle East despite these gestures. There are historic, domestic & strategic reasons for it. Indian proximity with Israel & Indo-Pak friction always remains factor in Indo-Arab relations. With ascendance of resurgent Islam this arena is likely to assume extra importance. Kashmir & Communal riots in Inia have remained focus of Islamic Movements across the globe. One can't overlook shadow of these over relations between India & Arab world ruled by Islamists. Relation between the state and Islamic Movements within India too is a potential factor in this domain. No one should expect India to be perceived as friend by Islamists overseas while it remains vindictive to groups professing the same ideology domestically.  Recession of minority development index (MDI) & honeymoon of India with Jamal Abdul Nasser while he was executing Muslim Brotherhood leadership remain two other potential impediments in the way of a trust worthy relationship between resurgent Islam & India. 
After demise of communism as a political power and end of the cold war, world has plunged in to new confrontation between resurgent Islam & the West.  Krishna is trying to sail through these troubled waters. Why can’t India adopt positive approach towards resurgent Islam and sail through this war fare as well? Prior to taking any policy initiative Indian state needs to address the potential irritants enumerated above.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 29 March, 2012

Ind-toxicating General Knowledge

HIJACKING HISTORY

What they want is a complete saffronisation all colours. Painting history their own way is not only wicked, but farcical to say the least, comments Dr. Sheikh Showkat Hussain.

Within the Marxian paradigm, history is the most important theoretical weapon in the hands of the class which controls it. This perception of Marxists may or may not be true about every region of the world but applies in its totality to Kashmir situation. History like every other discipline has been used extensively as a tool of subjugation by those who dominate Kashmir. I have seen P N Oak claiming Taj Mahal to be a Hindu Palace and people predicting that soon he would be attributing construction of Lal Quila to Lal Bahadur Shastri. I had heard about communalist intoxication of text books during Bhartya Janta Party rule in India but what I experienced during a cursory view of a general knowledge compilation was distortion of Kashmir history by those who give us sermons of objectivity and unbaisedness. All shades of opinion across the globe have a consensus on the fact that Kashmiris converted to Islam as a result of Muslim missionaries like Bulbul Shah and Syed Ali Hamdani. Kashmir was not invaded by Muslims rather locals opted for Islam out of free will starting from the ruler Rinchan Shah. 
The same way all schools of Kashmiri thought converge on the point that 1931 is the beginning of Kashmiri reassertion and struggle against despotism. The State across LoC acknowledges it through its official functions on 13th July in memory of the Martyrs of 1931. Again every scholar and common man of Kashmir perceives that Sheikh Abdullah was sacked from Prime Ministership in 1953 because of his insistence on maintaining relations between India and Kashmir within the framework of and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Instrument of Accession. All these historical facts are presented in a completely different way in Chronicle India supplement 2010, a general knowledge guide meant for students appearing in competitive exams. I do not want to rephrase the descriptions of the chronicle but simply reproduce these.
* 1394-1416: Central Asian ruler Sikander invades Kashmir and brings about mass conversion to Islam. After the tyranny of Sikander was over, only eleven Kashmiri Hindu families survive (P No1023).
*1931: One of the worst communal riots led by Sheikh Abdullah and his Muslim Conference (P No1023).
*AUG 9 1953: Sheikh Abdullah is arrested. He had turned corrupt and autocrat. He tried to hold India for ransom by giving increasingly anti India speeches and preserve his power (P No1025).
These are not the only distortions of the Kashmir history but few among the glaring ones mentioned within the supplement. While enumerating militant groups of Kashmir the authors didn’t forget to include Awami Action Committee of Mirwaiz Omer Farooq within these despite its moderate postures. Democratic freedom party of Shabir Shah, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Hurriyat Conference are other groups included within the list (P. No 1038). Al Qaida has also been depicted as a Kashmiri Militant group. Name of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front however, does not figure within the list, it seems bona fides of Gandhian credentials of Muhammad Yasin Malik have been accepted and have facilitated this exclusion. The list of Kashmiri politicians includes Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Motilal Nehru apart from Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Yasin Malik. 
Mirwaiz Omar Farooq has failed to find place among politicians probably on account of heading “two militant outfits Hurriyat Conference and Awami Action Committee”. Mirwaiz shouldn’t get disheartened as Mirwaiz Yousuf Shah and Choudary Ghulam Abbas too remain missing from the list. For obvious reasons Hashim Qureshi enjoys a prominent position within the list of politicians and precedes everyone right from Indira Gandhi to Yasin Malik. One wonders why Pandit Nehru has not qualified to be a Kashmiri Politician despite inclusion of everyone from his progeny and predecessors within the list. Equally surprising is the issue why Pakistani Politicians of Kashmiri origin like Prime Minister Khwaja Nazim ud din, Nawaz Sharif, Ishaq Dar, Mubasir Hassan and Sheikh Rashid are excluded from the list. One may ask if Indira Gandhi on account of her Kashmir ancestry qualifies to be a Kashmiri politician why not Ayatollah Khomeini for the same reasons.
Not a single Kashmiri Muslim apart from Sheikh Noor ud din Wali qualified to be a philosopher and a historian. The list of administrators, diplomats includes all the known and unknown Kashmiri Pandits.
It is obvious that the distortions are neither mistakes nor result of inadequacy of information rather deliberate attempts to intoxicate new generations of Kashmir with that version of history which suits status quo. The efforts started long back when study of Diniyaat, Persian and Arabic was banished from schools in 1976 along with Kashmir history and geography during the rule of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. Bereft of any knowledge about Kashmir new generations of Kashmir are now sought to be `Ind-toxicated’ through this distorted version of knowledge. Like every dominant power the status quoist version targets every segment of Kashmiri society. Sheikh Abdullah like every collaborator remains target of Indignation in the Chronicle. The version of history doesn’t have an iota of space for the moderates and drum-beaters of realism. The Chronicle supplement provides a clear and explicit about plans of the ones whom it represents.
Notwithstanding the opposition by several authors of the Indian Constitution including Dr. Ambedkar, its chief architect Article 370 was inserted in the Constitution of India. This article is meant as a temporary measure, to be in effect until the formal constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is drafted (P. No1024).
The Chronicle is not the beginning and the end of this `Ind-toxication’ campaign rather a part of it. Good will Yatras, Vidyalas, extensions of Delhi based Public schools, radio channels even the so called local TV channels constitute part of same game plan. Unfortunately apart from sloganeering Kashmiri society has failed to respond to this challenge. Elites and academicians instead of resisting this tirade remain instruments of this campaign by assuming the role of peddlers of this toxin. Results of this callousness are obvious while Neelofar and Asiya invoked negative publicity in Indian TV channels. Jessica Lal and Ruchika continue to consume most of the media attention. The only difference for this disparity being association of Asiya and Neelofar with the maligned subjugated community and those of Jessica and Ruchika with the ruling nation. Therein lies all the difference.

Published Greater Kashmir dated 06 Jan 2010

Resistance has a History of its own

KASHMIR – THEN AND NOW

THE PHENOMENON IS NOT NEW. IT ONLY CHANGED MODES. IT BEGUN IN ‘47 AND EVEN TODAY IT REFUSES TO DIE DOWN, COMMENTS DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

Ever since Jammu and Kashmir State was annexed to India, Kashmiris continue to dispute legitimacy of this relation and perceive it to be a bond of subjugation. The modes of resistance assumed different forms during changing times. From 1947 to 1953, Political Conference of Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Karra initiated it. The resistance at this juncture remained confined to pasting of posters and raising of slogans by students of S.P. College. Even these modes of resistance invoked harsh reactions from local administration led by Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. In an era when switching on Radio Pakistan could invoke a reaction from “Khoftan Fakirs” (renegades of those times) indulging in pasting posters was fraught with horrifying repercussions. These included banishment to Pakistan administered Kashmir. This mode of resistance, however, played a role in mobilizing people. The mobilization manifested itself in the form of sloganeering at S.P. College on the eve of UN Commission’s visit and a similar scenario on a large scale at Eidgah during Moulana Abul Kalam Azad’s address to people on the occasion of Eid in 1953. The incidents were attributed to Sheikh Abdullah’s overt instigation and his administrative mismanagement. Sheikh was dismissed from Prime Ministership and detained. 
For a while, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad managed to camouflage the resistance through his cultural carnivals and his goga terror (Kashmiri distortion for Urdu gurga). The situation, however, instead of improving deteriorated further with Mirza Afzal Beigh organizing the resistance through Plebiscite Front (1955-1975). Election boycott, non cooperation, Jail Bharo used to be ways of defiance at this juncture. The peaceful resistance reached its climax in 1963 during Moi Muqadus agitation. Congress government in Delhi instead of responding to popular resistance tried to blunt the people’s movement through economic packages, legal and administrative measures aimed at integration of the state with Indian union. Kashmir plunged into insurgency in 1965 catalyzing Indo-Pak war. Americans betrayed Pakistan and imposed embargo on supply of military hardware to it. 
The continuation of embargo made Pakistan vulnerable and resulted in its dismemberment in 1971. The Kashmir resistance opted for a ‘look-East policy’ and tried to emulate the strategy adopted by Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rahman’s Awami League for secession from Pakistan. The strategy involved participation in elections and using electoral mandate as a justification for separation. Delhi, scared of this mode of resistance, imposed a ban on Plebiscite Front and did not allow it to join electoral fray. Shiekh Abdullah could participate in elections only after he dumped Plebiscite Front and transformed it into National Conference. Other actors which included Jama’at-e-Islami and Awami Action Committee (AAC) were perceived to be too insignificant and allowed to join electoral fray directly or indirectly. Using elections for mobilization continued to be a policy with these groups until 1987. Whole of society, especially the younger generation participated in these elections with the same intention that the mandate will be used as a justification for secession. Rulers of Delhi too made it a point to manipulate the election results and triggered the militant phase of resistance. 
Youth disillusioned with electoral process for achievement of their aspirations ultimately resorted to gun in 1990. The events in Punjab and Afghanistan provided motivation for armed resistance. Defeat and dismemberment of Soviet Union at the hands of Afghan Mujahideen emboldened Kashmiri youth and militant resistance became a predominant way of fight for Azadi.  New Delhi responded with promises of negotiated settlement while at the same time using ruthless force to suppress the insurgency. Narasimha Rao, the then prime minister of India, promised self-rule with “Sky as its limit”. Despite use of third generation renegades (Nabid’s) the resistance didn’t subside. Forced by continuation of resistance, BJP government offered ceasefire to Hizbul Mujahideen. The pressure of resistance compelled it to the extent of sending its Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, along with Masood Azhar, the head of Jaish-e-Muhammad to Kandhar for negotiations. Vajpayee’s ceasefire offer to Hizb and Jaswant Singh’s visit to Kandhar was not a concession but a compulsion. Indian state also proceeded for negotiations with Pakistan with which it had lost the edge of superiority in conventional warfare on account of nuclearization of the subcontinent.  
While these processes were on, the events of 9/11 changed the equations in favour of India. US mobilized the world against all sorts of armed freedom movements and dubbed these as manifestations of terrorism. The tirade against the so-called “terrorism” was pursued with such ruthlessness that the mastermind of Kargil conflict, Gen Pervez Musharraf, lost his nerves. Musharraf embarked upon U-Turn in its Kashmir policy. Pakistani postures unnerved a segment of the Hurriyat leadership which too found in it an avenue of reconciliation with the status quo in the name of realism and self-rule. Indian state perceived War on Terror as a permanent phenomenon. Instead of taking advantage and settling the issue it engaged in hoodwinking the Kashmiris, while engaging in “do more” rhetoric towards Pakistan. The situation to their dismay proved to be temporary. American War on Terror started to prove as a biggest fiasco for the sole super power. On one side US continued to receive a beeline of body bags from Afghanistan on the other side its economy plunged into recession. The situation made Kashmiri masses to rejuvenate and adopt a different way of resistance. The ‘Look-East policy’ of pre-90s was substituted by policy of looking towards Middle East. Intifada of Palestinians became their role model. Youth and resilient segment of leadership started to use demonstrations and ensuing clashes involving throwing of stones as a new technique. There was nothing new in it in terms of modus operandi; the only new element within it was conscious involvement of committed youngsters. The 2008 Amarnath Land Row catalyzed a mass mobilization in favor of this mode of resistance. It dissipated all illusions about Kashmiris having reconciled to the status quo on account of depletion of levels of militancy. Kashmiri youth continued with this pattern of resistance even after Amarnath Land Row. The resistance, however, remained confined to towns and cities with leaders opting a lukewarm approach towards it. Some self-styled intellectuals and Muftis even ridiculed this mode of resistance. The Quit Kashmir Movement of Hurriyat Conference led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Civil Disobedience Movement of Hurriyat (M) however, conferred ownership and legitimacy to this mode of resistance. With Pakistan formally abandoning Musharraf’s four-point formula and different segments of Hurriyat speaking in same length and line, Kashmir again stands mobilized from one corner to another. The mobilization transcends even Amarnath agitation of 2008 and Moi Muqaddas agitation of 1963. The response to this movement has taken beyond Pir Panchal. It has created an impact in Chenab Valley, Poonch and Rajouri too. It has erased the illusions that Kashmiris have submitted to the status quo on account of their participation in elections. This new phase has enabled Kashmiris to manage survival of their resistance through worst times when their aspiration for Azadi was sought to be buried forever in the name of fight against terrorism. Rulers of Delhi are again behaving as ostriches by involving in acts of self-deceit through media censorship and oppression. This attitude is sought to be justified through misinterpretations and manipulations of agency sponsored Kashmir experts. New Delhi is probably waiting for departure of Americans from Afghanistan so that non-state actors again get a chance to get involved and Indian state ‘avails’ an opportunity of dispatching its Foreign Minister for negotiations to Kandhar. Those having confidence of defeating two super powers can prove to be more lethal than the ones India faced in 90’s. Being at war with it, Pakistani state too can’t control their Kashmir involvement. Irrespective of postures given through  recent Donors Conference at Kabul, Americans are surely leaving that country. The US too has confirmed it through reduction of four billion US dollar aid to the Karzai administration. No one in Kashmir expects Quit Kashmir Movement of Geelani and Civil Disobedience Movement of Mirwaiz to fetch them Azadi immediately, but these movements like Quit India Movement have surely mobilized the Kashmiri society for post 2011 scenario. Sense of non achievement can drive Kashmiri youth towards another cycle of insurgency. Every new phase of resistance in Kashmir has been more lethal than the preceding ones. Those defeated in Afghanistan can’t be expected of much help in such an eventuality. Instead of persuading Americans to stay in Afghanistan, Indian state needs to take bold initiative on Kashmir. This is the only way to deal with the situation instead of becoming its victim.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 31 July 2010