Every polity has various shades of opinion. It utilizes these for its own interests and realization of its national objectives. Sometimes it is used as an antidote to different challenges. Indian state is no exception to this phenomenon. It uses varying shades of opinion within its political system for different purposes. At times Hindu hardliners are used to scare minorities. They create a siege mentality among non-dominant groups and infuse within them the feeling that the ones in power remain the only shield for them against aggressive sections. Left too is used to contain separatist movements by pitting it against secessionists in north eastern states. At the level of foreign policy, both left and right are used to pursue its case within different spectrums of global opinions. Moulvis and Moulanas too are used in pursuance of foreign policy objectives. For years, leaders of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-hind were sent to pacify the opinion of Muslim world against recurring anti-Muslim riots within India. This is what Moulvi Mahmood Madani did during recent India Today Conclave and invoked the title of “munafiq” from General Musharraf. Let us understand how different segments of Indian political opinion impact Kashmir resistance.
RSS and its frontal groups often issue statements for abrogation of Article 370, they trigger Hindu-Muslim riots and demand erasing of Muslim identity. This attitude of Indian right is used to convey to Kashmiri Muslims that their co-religionists within India will not remain safe in the eventuality of separation of Kashmir from India. Though they aim at dilution of secessionism through this approach, the rhetoric, however, most of the times boomerangs and becomes counter productive. It helps separatist leadership within Kashmir to mobilize people by infusing within them sense of insecurity. The alienation gets further enhanced by hooliganism and vulgarity of RSS and its frontal groups. Vandalisation of Babri Masjid by Hindu extremists and their economic blockade during Amarnath land row helped cultivation and promotion of separatism in a big way. Separatism in Kashmir though sought to be contained through use of extremist postures has in many way thrived on these. Most of the actions of Indian right have helped to perpetuate the sentiment of freedom in Kashmir.
On contrary, the role of Indian left in spite of being anti-Hinduvta has served Indian occupation in many ways. Anti-RSS rhetoric of communists invokes attention towards them. This receptiveness has been exploited ever since Kashmir freedom struggle started to the advantage of Indian occupation. It were the communists who motivated Sheikh Abdullah to transform Muslim Conference into National Conference. This change re-oriented the freedom struggle in pre-1947 era towards a direction that landed Kashmir in Indian occupation. The leftists within NC led by G M Sadiq cultivated a wedge between Qaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Sheikh Abdullah. On detention and dethronement of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, it were the communists of India who lobbied for Russian and Chinese support of Indian policies in Kashmir. As a result, Bulganian and Khrushchev visited Kashmir and supported India in United Nations. China too issued statements in support of Indian Kashmir policy. Thanks to Indo-China clash and their rivalry on Tibet, China changed its policy and became an ardent supporter of Kashmir liberation.
Communist lobby within National Conference worked against Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad and manipulated his exit in lieu of facilitating integration of Kashmir with India. Leftists led by G M Sadiq headed this tirade and worked for erosion of Kashmir autonomy. On ascendance to power, G M Sadiq abolished the posts of Sadr-e-Riyasat and Prime Minister. He also extended various Indian constitutional provisions to the state. Prior to his taking over in 1964, no Indian party had its unit in Kashmir. He reversed this practice. The communists were so overwhelmed by this act that Communist Party of India established its unit in Jammu and Kashmir prior to Congress. It was Indo-Russian proximity facilitated by Indian communists that led to creation of Bangladesh and dismemberment of Pakistan. This act was simply aimed at making Kashmir a bilateral issue and coercing Pakistan to abandon internationalization of Kashmir issue. Thank God this policy of Indians didn’t succeed on account of Sino-American détente in post Indo-Pak war of 1971. In 1968, Indian left motivated Sheikh Abdullah to reverse his policy of confrontation with Delhi. He was asked to go for a People’s Convention for endorsement of his changed stance. The convention proclaimed such a solution of Kashmir problem as its objective “that strengthens secular forces within the sub-continent.” This again led to disorientation of Kashmir freedom struggle that finally landed Sheikh Abdullah into Indira-Abdullah accord of 1975. Socialists like Jai Prakash Narayan played a leading role in this endeavor.
At present, Indian left is again working to disorient Kashmir freedom struggle. Sponsored by state agencies, so many leftist intellectuals approach Kashmiris in order to share their “experience of freedom struggle” with them. One wonders what is source of this experience. Indian left has been opposed to freedom struggle within its own home land. The Communists opposed Quit India Movement and supported colonizers. Justification extended for this was that “British colonization is a lesser evil as compared to Nazism of Hitler”. Same has been the attitude of Indian left towards neo colonization launched in the garb of liberalization and globalization. The architects of neo-colonialism in India received support of the left on the pretext of being lesser evil as compared to fascist rightists. They have a simple message for us, “Kashmir freedom is around, what needs to be done is to dissociate the freedom struggle from its Muslim orientation and green color.” The message is repetition of the same mischief which they played in 30’s of previous century by making us to transform Muslim Conference into National Conference and paving way for our occupation.
Global scenario reflects that Kashmir has more chances of freedom if it is portrayed as a Muslim issue. World powers have realized that it is Muslims who have the capacity and will to reorient global scenario. Americans have embarked upon a new beginning with Muslims on ascendance of Obama to power. They realize that it was Muslim support that made them victorious against communism and their help is indispensable for achievement of American foreign policy objectives. Muslims have to be given a concession to enlist their support. Middle East provides little space beyond that what has already been conceded. Freedom of Kashmir if portrayed as a concession to Muslim world can invoke the receptiveness of the policy makers. Russians too may remain positive towards such a formulation. They realize that it was their negative image within Muslim world that led to fragmentation of Soviet Union. In India, foreign relations and Kashmir remain insignificant issues in electoral debate finding little reflection in manifesto of political parties. Any negative fall out of such a portrayal is unlikely as the issue is already perceived in the same light. The communists and civil society activists who shed crocodile tears for Kashmir have failed or are unwilling to cultivate any positive opinion for Kashmir freedom within India. Unlike US, where Iraq became axis of electoral debate, Kashmir remains a non issue for Indians as is evident from its absence from political discourse during Indian elections.
RSS and its frontal groups often issue statements for abrogation of Article 370, they trigger Hindu-Muslim riots and demand erasing of Muslim identity. This attitude of Indian right is used to convey to Kashmiri Muslims that their co-religionists within India will not remain safe in the eventuality of separation of Kashmir from India. Though they aim at dilution of secessionism through this approach, the rhetoric, however, most of the times boomerangs and becomes counter productive. It helps separatist leadership within Kashmir to mobilize people by infusing within them sense of insecurity. The alienation gets further enhanced by hooliganism and vulgarity of RSS and its frontal groups. Vandalisation of Babri Masjid by Hindu extremists and their economic blockade during Amarnath land row helped cultivation and promotion of separatism in a big way. Separatism in Kashmir though sought to be contained through use of extremist postures has in many way thrived on these. Most of the actions of Indian right have helped to perpetuate the sentiment of freedom in Kashmir.
On contrary, the role of Indian left in spite of being anti-Hinduvta has served Indian occupation in many ways. Anti-RSS rhetoric of communists invokes attention towards them. This receptiveness has been exploited ever since Kashmir freedom struggle started to the advantage of Indian occupation. It were the communists who motivated Sheikh Abdullah to transform Muslim Conference into National Conference. This change re-oriented the freedom struggle in pre-1947 era towards a direction that landed Kashmir in Indian occupation. The leftists within NC led by G M Sadiq cultivated a wedge between Qaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Sheikh Abdullah. On detention and dethronement of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, it were the communists of India who lobbied for Russian and Chinese support of Indian policies in Kashmir. As a result, Bulganian and Khrushchev visited Kashmir and supported India in United Nations. China too issued statements in support of Indian Kashmir policy. Thanks to Indo-China clash and their rivalry on Tibet, China changed its policy and became an ardent supporter of Kashmir liberation.
Communist lobby within National Conference worked against Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad and manipulated his exit in lieu of facilitating integration of Kashmir with India. Leftists led by G M Sadiq headed this tirade and worked for erosion of Kashmir autonomy. On ascendance to power, G M Sadiq abolished the posts of Sadr-e-Riyasat and Prime Minister. He also extended various Indian constitutional provisions to the state. Prior to his taking over in 1964, no Indian party had its unit in Kashmir. He reversed this practice. The communists were so overwhelmed by this act that Communist Party of India established its unit in Jammu and Kashmir prior to Congress. It was Indo-Russian proximity facilitated by Indian communists that led to creation of Bangladesh and dismemberment of Pakistan. This act was simply aimed at making Kashmir a bilateral issue and coercing Pakistan to abandon internationalization of Kashmir issue. Thank God this policy of Indians didn’t succeed on account of Sino-American détente in post Indo-Pak war of 1971. In 1968, Indian left motivated Sheikh Abdullah to reverse his policy of confrontation with Delhi. He was asked to go for a People’s Convention for endorsement of his changed stance. The convention proclaimed such a solution of Kashmir problem as its objective “that strengthens secular forces within the sub-continent.” This again led to disorientation of Kashmir freedom struggle that finally landed Sheikh Abdullah into Indira-Abdullah accord of 1975. Socialists like Jai Prakash Narayan played a leading role in this endeavor.
At present, Indian left is again working to disorient Kashmir freedom struggle. Sponsored by state agencies, so many leftist intellectuals approach Kashmiris in order to share their “experience of freedom struggle” with them. One wonders what is source of this experience. Indian left has been opposed to freedom struggle within its own home land. The Communists opposed Quit India Movement and supported colonizers. Justification extended for this was that “British colonization is a lesser evil as compared to Nazism of Hitler”. Same has been the attitude of Indian left towards neo colonization launched in the garb of liberalization and globalization. The architects of neo-colonialism in India received support of the left on the pretext of being lesser evil as compared to fascist rightists. They have a simple message for us, “Kashmir freedom is around, what needs to be done is to dissociate the freedom struggle from its Muslim orientation and green color.” The message is repetition of the same mischief which they played in 30’s of previous century by making us to transform Muslim Conference into National Conference and paving way for our occupation.
Global scenario reflects that Kashmir has more chances of freedom if it is portrayed as a Muslim issue. World powers have realized that it is Muslims who have the capacity and will to reorient global scenario. Americans have embarked upon a new beginning with Muslims on ascendance of Obama to power. They realize that it was Muslim support that made them victorious against communism and their help is indispensable for achievement of American foreign policy objectives. Muslims have to be given a concession to enlist their support. Middle East provides little space beyond that what has already been conceded. Freedom of Kashmir if portrayed as a concession to Muslim world can invoke the receptiveness of the policy makers. Russians too may remain positive towards such a formulation. They realize that it was their negative image within Muslim world that led to fragmentation of Soviet Union. In India, foreign relations and Kashmir remain insignificant issues in electoral debate finding little reflection in manifesto of political parties. Any negative fall out of such a portrayal is unlikely as the issue is already perceived in the same light. The communists and civil society activists who shed crocodile tears for Kashmir have failed or are unwilling to cultivate any positive opinion for Kashmir freedom within India. Unlike US, where Iraq became axis of electoral debate, Kashmir remains a non issue for Indians as is evident from its absence from political discourse during Indian elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment