Social stratification and deprivation make India a fit case for a communist revolution. Inspite of these factors, communism has failed to dominate India. Communist parties initiated their struggle and deprived sections of Indian society identified themselves with this movement. After some time, members of upper cast Brahman community and other feudal classes joined the communist movement. Their penetration transformed the communist parties from revolutionary organizations into defenders of the status quo. Right from Quit India Movement status quo has been justified as the only option available in a situation where options are limited and one has to choose between two evils. While opposing Quit India Movement, British imperialism was portrayed as lesser evil as compared to fascist Nazism. Nowadays, support for the viceroy of World Bank and architect of capitalist model of liberalization in India, Mr. Manmohan Singh is perceived to be an expediency in order to block ascendance of Bhartia Janta Party (BJP) to power. The transformation of communist movement was result of infiltration of Brahmans and other feudal classes within it. The biases of these classes infested the communist movement to the extent that twenty five percent Muslim population of West Bengal could not elevate its representation in state services beyond four percent during thirty (30) years of communist rule, according to the recent Sachar Committee Report. Communist youth got alienated from the mainstream communist parties initiated naxalite movement. Even this movement was sabotaged by the communist parties which facilitated annihilation of its cadres. What happened with communist parties in India is invariably fate of revolutionary movements everywhere. Those segments of society which are beneficiaries and instruments of status quo in first instance ridicule these movements. If a revolutionary movement persists, force is used to crush it. In case the force fails and the movement proves to be resilient, infiltration within the movement and hijacking of its slogans is the ultimate strategy for its subversion.
Kashmir is experiencing a similar situation at this juncture. Kashmiris revived their freedom movement after being betrayed by their leadership. The revival was projected to be a quest for an utopia by the leadership of National Conference, Congress and Peoples Democratic Party. People too were lukewarm in the inception on account of previous experiences and fragility of outside supporters. Determination of those who revived the movement transformed the situation. The invincibility of super powers was exposed in Afghanistan. Weakness of the occupation became obvious in Punjab. Kashmiris shed their docility, transformed an insignificant voice into a full blown revolutionary movement in Nineties. Those who betrayed them and planned to return within months as soon as the bubble of freedom bursts continue to wait for decades for resumption of normalcy. Brute force was used to suppress the aspirations. Use of force proved to be counterproductive and indifferent segments of society joined the struggle for emancipation. The movement survived even somersaults and U turn of some of its leaders. The docile race proved to be more resilient than the martial race of Punjabis. Determination of the people betrayed even the expectations of benefactors. Transformation of Pakistan from supporter of an aspiration to facilitator of Status quo didn’t diffuse the wish for emancipation. Kashmiris endorsed the hard-line despite indifference and negative attitude of Pakistani mass media. The only way left out for those who wished to perpetuate the status quo was to identify themselves with the movement, hijack its slogans and infiltrate its ranks. This is what is being put into practice nowadays.
Those who facilitated occupation of Kashmir talk about resolution of Kashmir problem. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who was the home minister of India, when a rein of terror and tyranny was let loose upon Kashmiris talks about demilitarization. Although it was Mufti who presided over deployment of troops on every inch of Kashmiri soil. Omer Abdullah, whose ancestors were architects of accession and who has been defending Indian position on Kashmir at international forums, demands inclusion of Hizbul Mujahideen within negotiation process. The attitude of agents and instrument of status quo is not strange. Its response on the part of profreedom elements is surprising. Shabir Shah welcomes Mufti Sayeed and asks him to join the freedom movement, knowing well that his induction into movement will do nothing good to the freedom struggle apart from its subversion. Equally surprising is the welcome statement of Hizbul Mujahideen to the postures of Omer Abdullah. Whether these statements come out of transformation of heart and mind or represent a tactical move on the part of forces of occupation had to be ascertained before utterance of words of appreciation. Background of a group has to be kept in consideration while responding to its postures. Positive response to tactical postures can lead to rehabilitation of outcasts and help them to subvert the freedom movement. Even if positive postures towards the ongoing movement are out of sincerity, they should not lead us to make those with tainted past as leaders and architects of our destiny. Kashmir history was victim of similar mistakes when leaders of freedom movement in 1932 overwhelmed by support of Prem Nath Bazaz in Glancy Commission elevated him to the status of architect of the movement and transformed Muslim Conference into National Conference on his advice. It was this mistake of Kashmiri leadership for which Kashmir had to pay for decades. Inspite of his sincerity the act of Prem Nath Bazaz led to subversion of the movement for which he too repented later on. Words of sympathy and reflection of freedom struggle in a positive way deserves to be appreciated but this appreciation should not land us in a situation where we gift away our leadership and shawls of freedom in lieu of these words. Some lesson also needs to be learned from the attitude of our adversaries. Our moderates in spite of abandonment demand for self-determination are unable to secure even an appointment from the Indian Prime Minister. President Bush on the other hand remains ready for new list of demands from ever-appeasing General Musharraf.
These words may sound to be skeptical but history has pushed Kashmiris to skepticism. It is this skepticism of Kashmiris towards peace process that is keeping their aspiration alive and their issue in focus of international attention. It is this skepticism that is becoming a barrier in the way of those who are bent upon selling sacrifices of 100,000 martyrs for petty personal gains. History too leads us to similar cautious approach. After all we are the ones who have seen the movement being betrayed by its pioneers and hijacked by its adversaries. Muslim history too leads us towards similar approach. We have seen the Ummayds who opposed ascendance of Islam, on their conversion revived the tribal feuds which Islam had come to eradicate, transformed the Khilafat into monarchy and presided over annihilation of family of our beloved Prophet (SAW) in the battlefields of Kabala.
Kashmir is experiencing a similar situation at this juncture. Kashmiris revived their freedom movement after being betrayed by their leadership. The revival was projected to be a quest for an utopia by the leadership of National Conference, Congress and Peoples Democratic Party. People too were lukewarm in the inception on account of previous experiences and fragility of outside supporters. Determination of those who revived the movement transformed the situation. The invincibility of super powers was exposed in Afghanistan. Weakness of the occupation became obvious in Punjab. Kashmiris shed their docility, transformed an insignificant voice into a full blown revolutionary movement in Nineties. Those who betrayed them and planned to return within months as soon as the bubble of freedom bursts continue to wait for decades for resumption of normalcy. Brute force was used to suppress the aspirations. Use of force proved to be counterproductive and indifferent segments of society joined the struggle for emancipation. The movement survived even somersaults and U turn of some of its leaders. The docile race proved to be more resilient than the martial race of Punjabis. Determination of the people betrayed even the expectations of benefactors. Transformation of Pakistan from supporter of an aspiration to facilitator of Status quo didn’t diffuse the wish for emancipation. Kashmiris endorsed the hard-line despite indifference and negative attitude of Pakistani mass media. The only way left out for those who wished to perpetuate the status quo was to identify themselves with the movement, hijack its slogans and infiltrate its ranks. This is what is being put into practice nowadays.
Those who facilitated occupation of Kashmir talk about resolution of Kashmir problem. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who was the home minister of India, when a rein of terror and tyranny was let loose upon Kashmiris talks about demilitarization. Although it was Mufti who presided over deployment of troops on every inch of Kashmiri soil. Omer Abdullah, whose ancestors were architects of accession and who has been defending Indian position on Kashmir at international forums, demands inclusion of Hizbul Mujahideen within negotiation process. The attitude of agents and instrument of status quo is not strange. Its response on the part of profreedom elements is surprising. Shabir Shah welcomes Mufti Sayeed and asks him to join the freedom movement, knowing well that his induction into movement will do nothing good to the freedom struggle apart from its subversion. Equally surprising is the welcome statement of Hizbul Mujahideen to the postures of Omer Abdullah. Whether these statements come out of transformation of heart and mind or represent a tactical move on the part of forces of occupation had to be ascertained before utterance of words of appreciation. Background of a group has to be kept in consideration while responding to its postures. Positive response to tactical postures can lead to rehabilitation of outcasts and help them to subvert the freedom movement. Even if positive postures towards the ongoing movement are out of sincerity, they should not lead us to make those with tainted past as leaders and architects of our destiny. Kashmir history was victim of similar mistakes when leaders of freedom movement in 1932 overwhelmed by support of Prem Nath Bazaz in Glancy Commission elevated him to the status of architect of the movement and transformed Muslim Conference into National Conference on his advice. It was this mistake of Kashmiri leadership for which Kashmir had to pay for decades. Inspite of his sincerity the act of Prem Nath Bazaz led to subversion of the movement for which he too repented later on. Words of sympathy and reflection of freedom struggle in a positive way deserves to be appreciated but this appreciation should not land us in a situation where we gift away our leadership and shawls of freedom in lieu of these words. Some lesson also needs to be learned from the attitude of our adversaries. Our moderates in spite of abandonment demand for self-determination are unable to secure even an appointment from the Indian Prime Minister. President Bush on the other hand remains ready for new list of demands from ever-appeasing General Musharraf.
These words may sound to be skeptical but history has pushed Kashmiris to skepticism. It is this skepticism of Kashmiris towards peace process that is keeping their aspiration alive and their issue in focus of international attention. It is this skepticism that is becoming a barrier in the way of those who are bent upon selling sacrifices of 100,000 martyrs for petty personal gains. History too leads us to similar cautious approach. After all we are the ones who have seen the movement being betrayed by its pioneers and hijacked by its adversaries. Muslim history too leads us towards similar approach. We have seen the Ummayds who opposed ascendance of Islam, on their conversion revived the tribal feuds which Islam had come to eradicate, transformed the Khilafat into monarchy and presided over annihilation of family of our beloved Prophet (SAW) in the battlefields of Kabala.
No comments:
Post a Comment