Dogras are members of a race that ruled Jammu and Kashmir State prior to 1947. During their rule they perpetrated all sorts of injustices and exploitations against the Muslim majority of the state. It is because of their exploitation and injustice that Muslims were rendered backward in all walks of life. Once power equations changed against Dogras in 1947 and Muslims started getting a better deal, they cried foul about it and often blackmailed the state administration to seek undue concessions with tacit support of the center. This is the Kashmiri elite view of Dogras and has been cultivated by successive governments of National Conference Parivar to enhance their image as the emancipators of the Muslim majority.
There is nothing new about rulers attributing economic and social problems to preceding governments. Even the Vajpayee Government talked about mismanagement of past fifty years of Congress rule overlooking the mess it created within days of its coming to power. The problem however, gets complicated when preceding government is identified with a certain community and it is subjected to malicious propaganda for the real or imaginary sins of its members who happened to be rulers at a particular point of history.
Britishers did the same when they colonised India. They identified Mughal and Afghan rulers of the medieval India with Muslim community and held it responsible for “emasculation” and “exploitation” of Hindus. This interpretation of history, although done by Britishers with the intention of projecting themselves as emancipators rather than colonizers, led to creation of perpetual enmity between Muslims and Hindus. Constituents of Sang Parivar are led by the same notion of history to demolish Babri Masjid and demand for conversion of Kashi and Mathura mosques into temples. Sikhs also were intoxicated with the same misinterpretation of history when they, in 1947, penalised their Muslim neighbours, the followers of Baba Farid (d. 1265) and Mian Mir for the political sins of Mugal rulers. Due to this intoxication they overlooked the fact that it were not only Sikh Gurus but also Muslim saints like Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624) who became victims of Mugal autocracy.
We are fortunate that the new generation of Kashmir is immune to such parochial view of history. Although the National Conference was looking desperately for a retaliatory out-burst in Kashmir against the agitation in Jammu, yet people of the valley remained indifferent. To the seasoned (NC oriented) elite, this indifference may sound suicidal negligence created as a result of unidirectional politics of the Hurriyat Conference and Militants, but to me it is indicator of valley’s maturing political thought. The ordeals through which Kashmiris had to undergo in Naya Kashmir have erased the bitter memories of Dogra Raj from their minds. Even if remembered, the atrocities of Dogra rule are remembered as injustices of a despotic dynasty rather than acts of Dogras as a community. Afterall majority of Dogras, like Muslims remained backward and illiterate during dynastic rule . Beneficiaries of the rule were the ones who have been traditionally Karkuns of every succeeding dynasty in Kashmir. Even now Dogras by and large continue to be backward and all the wealth and business seen in and around Ragunath Bazar and the Residency Road belongs to migrant Punjabis. By remaining indifferent, Kashmiris have also demonstrated their capability of blunting the red herrings which are likely to detract them from their chosen path.
This attitude on the part of Kashmiris should also be seen in context of the exemplary restraint shown by Dogras during militancy. They have vehemently refused to play in the hands of some migrant provocators and maintained cordial relations with people of the valley. Two major communities of the state seem to have developed some tacit understanding after their long association with each other. Need of the hour is to convert this understanding into active cooperation and extend it to issues concerning destiny of the state.
When I plead for such cooperation, it may be branded by some quarters as one more attempt of secularizing the on going movement. To the people associated with such quarters, I simply request to have proper appreciation of the Prophet’s (SAW) seerat before issuing a fatwa. The Prophet (SAW) sought cooperation of jews while establishing the state of Medina. At Khyber, Jewish tribe of Banu Kanqua combated on the side of Muslims. The polytheists of Safwan bin Umavah fought along with Muslims in the battle of Hunayn. During the days of Caliph Umar (RA), the Christian tribes of Tablig, Tonu and Bakr were associated with Muslim Army in the conquest of Persia. It is clear from these instances that even from the Islamic point of view, a struggle does not loose its sanctity if non-Muslims are associated with it.
In the present day scenario when importance of Delhi as the centre of power is receding day by day and state capitals are emerging as new centres of power, Dogras can’t be averse to such a cooperation. They are firmly rooted in their history. Dogra history has been a history of cooperation and coordination with Muslims. They were the ones who sided with Mahmood Gouri (1175-1206) against Prithviraj. They were associated with Aurangzeb (1618-1707) in his expeditions to Deccan. It were the Dogras who supported Ahmad Shah Abdali (1722-72) against Marathas and Sikhs. While doing all this, they remained firmly attached to their traditions and beliefs. None of the Muslim rulers tried to proselytize them. Unlike Kashmiri Pandits who have thrown away their traditional Pherans for Dhoti (Sari) to get identified with the people of Gangetic plains, Dogra ladies continue to maintain their traditional Shalwar-suits with pride and dignity.
With such strong historical and behavioral foundations for cooperation, why can’t those trying to reshape the destiny of Kashmir pursue for such a coordination. It is the demand of history, our future & demand of the situation in which we are placed. It is a possibility, provided there is a visionary approach and a receptive attitude. It is hoped that the genuine leadership on both sides will imbibe these qualities to evade Balkanisation of the state.
There is nothing new about rulers attributing economic and social problems to preceding governments. Even the Vajpayee Government talked about mismanagement of past fifty years of Congress rule overlooking the mess it created within days of its coming to power. The problem however, gets complicated when preceding government is identified with a certain community and it is subjected to malicious propaganda for the real or imaginary sins of its members who happened to be rulers at a particular point of history.
Britishers did the same when they colonised India. They identified Mughal and Afghan rulers of the medieval India with Muslim community and held it responsible for “emasculation” and “exploitation” of Hindus. This interpretation of history, although done by Britishers with the intention of projecting themselves as emancipators rather than colonizers, led to creation of perpetual enmity between Muslims and Hindus. Constituents of Sang Parivar are led by the same notion of history to demolish Babri Masjid and demand for conversion of Kashi and Mathura mosques into temples. Sikhs also were intoxicated with the same misinterpretation of history when they, in 1947, penalised their Muslim neighbours, the followers of Baba Farid (d. 1265) and Mian Mir for the political sins of Mugal rulers. Due to this intoxication they overlooked the fact that it were not only Sikh Gurus but also Muslim saints like Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624) who became victims of Mugal autocracy.
We are fortunate that the new generation of Kashmir is immune to such parochial view of history. Although the National Conference was looking desperately for a retaliatory out-burst in Kashmir against the agitation in Jammu, yet people of the valley remained indifferent. To the seasoned (NC oriented) elite, this indifference may sound suicidal negligence created as a result of unidirectional politics of the Hurriyat Conference and Militants, but to me it is indicator of valley’s maturing political thought. The ordeals through which Kashmiris had to undergo in Naya Kashmir have erased the bitter memories of Dogra Raj from their minds. Even if remembered, the atrocities of Dogra rule are remembered as injustices of a despotic dynasty rather than acts of Dogras as a community. Afterall majority of Dogras, like Muslims remained backward and illiterate during dynastic rule . Beneficiaries of the rule were the ones who have been traditionally Karkuns of every succeeding dynasty in Kashmir. Even now Dogras by and large continue to be backward and all the wealth and business seen in and around Ragunath Bazar and the Residency Road belongs to migrant Punjabis. By remaining indifferent, Kashmiris have also demonstrated their capability of blunting the red herrings which are likely to detract them from their chosen path.
This attitude on the part of Kashmiris should also be seen in context of the exemplary restraint shown by Dogras during militancy. They have vehemently refused to play in the hands of some migrant provocators and maintained cordial relations with people of the valley. Two major communities of the state seem to have developed some tacit understanding after their long association with each other. Need of the hour is to convert this understanding into active cooperation and extend it to issues concerning destiny of the state.
When I plead for such cooperation, it may be branded by some quarters as one more attempt of secularizing the on going movement. To the people associated with such quarters, I simply request to have proper appreciation of the Prophet’s (SAW) seerat before issuing a fatwa. The Prophet (SAW) sought cooperation of jews while establishing the state of Medina. At Khyber, Jewish tribe of Banu Kanqua combated on the side of Muslims. The polytheists of Safwan bin Umavah fought along with Muslims in the battle of Hunayn. During the days of Caliph Umar (RA), the Christian tribes of Tablig, Tonu and Bakr were associated with Muslim Army in the conquest of Persia. It is clear from these instances that even from the Islamic point of view, a struggle does not loose its sanctity if non-Muslims are associated with it.
In the present day scenario when importance of Delhi as the centre of power is receding day by day and state capitals are emerging as new centres of power, Dogras can’t be averse to such a cooperation. They are firmly rooted in their history. Dogra history has been a history of cooperation and coordination with Muslims. They were the ones who sided with Mahmood Gouri (1175-1206) against Prithviraj. They were associated with Aurangzeb (1618-1707) in his expeditions to Deccan. It were the Dogras who supported Ahmad Shah Abdali (1722-72) against Marathas and Sikhs. While doing all this, they remained firmly attached to their traditions and beliefs. None of the Muslim rulers tried to proselytize them. Unlike Kashmiri Pandits who have thrown away their traditional Pherans for Dhoti (Sari) to get identified with the people of Gangetic plains, Dogra ladies continue to maintain their traditional Shalwar-suits with pride and dignity.
With such strong historical and behavioral foundations for cooperation, why can’t those trying to reshape the destiny of Kashmir pursue for such a coordination. It is the demand of history, our future & demand of the situation in which we are placed. It is a possibility, provided there is a visionary approach and a receptive attitude. It is hoped that the genuine leadership on both sides will imbibe these qualities to evade Balkanisation of the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment