Kashmir speaks to Aligarh

The breeze that originates from Aligarh has potential of shaping the destiny of nations Kashmir can’t be an exception to this phenomenon

Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain
I congratulate AMU administration for opening study centres beyond Aligarh. Previously we had claim of being the only Muslim University now so many Muslim institutions including universities are coming up across India. Expansion of AMU is indispensible for assertion of the claim of being the Muslim University and not one among these institutions. I thank you for launching an entrance test centre at Srinagar, Kashmir.

 Aligarh is a city of knowledge and today’s seminar is an attempt for understanding Kashmir problem in this context.
It is often conveyed to you that rise of fundamentalism is reason for separatism in Kashmir on contrary it is a fact that it was Ram Chandra Kak the Prime Minster of Maharaja Hari Singh who opposed accession of Kashmir to India .Kak was dragged handcuffed from his place of detention to Sadder Court Srinagar soon after Indian State assumed control of Kashmir. Same way Prem Nath Bazaz suffered exile and imprisonment for opposing the accession. They say Kashmiris are separatists how can we be separatists when their chief minister questions relationship of state with India on floor of the State Assembly by stating we have acceded not merged and Indian Constitution portrays the state as the one whose final disposition is yet to take place (Article 253). In law marriage is pre- requisite for separation among spouses. Where there is no marriage (merger) there can’t be divorce. No doubt instrument of accession signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir was same as signed by other states that acceded to India. Response to it however, was completely different. Lord Mountbatten in his response made it conditional to ratification of people. It was Pandit Nehru who took this issue to UN and UN endorsed that the issue be resolved in accordance with wishes of Kashmiri people. We are told that requirement of peoples’ endorsement of accession has been achieved through the Constituent Assembly of the state. How the assembly with 73 out 75 members elected un-contested can represent people of the state especially in a situation when both Nehru and UN contested validity of such an endorsement. It is an established fact that most of the elections in the state were bungled and manipulated (Bipin Chandra, India After Independence, Viking 1999, Page 323).
Indian state is not serious about Kashmir. When there is trouble in Kashmir, Indian government makes a lot of promises which are never kept. Nehru promised plebiscite; Narshima Rao offered anything short of azadi with sky as its limit. National Conference responded with an autonomy report while Peoples Democratic Party submitted a draft of self rule. Both these formulations were rejected despite being proposals of pro-India parties. When General Musharraf proposed four point formulae Indian government remained indifferent and refused to get engaged with a military dictator. Now we have a democratic government in Pakistan Indian government says negotiations with Musharraf was a better option. This is tactics of buying time pursued with an objective of getting Kashmiri exhausted.
In Kashmir harassment and killing are the order of the day. Last summer 120 innocent boys were killed. A case of rape of three generations of women by members of security agencies has been recorded in Shopian court. The victims included daughter, mother and grandmother. Muslims population of Jammu is showing a decline. From 39% in 1941 census it is now less than 10%. Our cultural identity too is at stake. Urdu which was made official language of the state by Maharaja Gulab Singh is sought to be driven out through manipulations in census. The language which dominates mass media is becoming extinct in official records. Census depicts 50% decline in Urdu speaking population whereas 2200% increase in Hindi speakers. This is far from realities result of manipulation of figures and enumeration of nomad Gujjars as Hindi speakers.
Kashmiris are determined to change this situation. Our goal is parity of status which every nation irrespective of its size enjoys at international level. You see it when president of two hundred thousand Maldivian populations enjoys same protocol as is given to Indian president who represents more than one billion people. On contrary UP chief minister seldom gets appointment in Delhi despite representing one hundred and eighty million people. We don’t want you (Muslim Indians) to get involved in our political struggle. But you can’t and should not remain indifferent to human rights situation of Kashmir. We want your support in this domain exclusively. It is your moral responsibility. Monika Gandhi’s consistent assertions relating to safety of dogs of Kashmir makes us feel that Indians are more worried about non-humans of Kashmir than humans. We need your support in reversing these priorities. We know you (Muslim Indians) too are struggling for equality and identity. Your right to life, liberty, equality and identity is provided in your constitution. You are entitled to these rights as humans and citizens of India. These rights are not granted to you in lieu of hostage status of Kashmir. Given this fact all views expressed about safety of Indian minorities in the eventuality of separation of Kashmir sound absurd. We support your struggle for equality and identity. I, personally feel that this struggle has failed to make any headway on account of absence of political agenda with Muslim Indians. You have been on defensive bereft of any positive political agenda. This deficit of Indian Muslim politics needs to be addressed. Aligarh Muslim University Students Union (AMUSU) can trigger a discourse in this direction. You need to take queue from dalits. Twenty years back no one was ready to take risk of contesting elections as a candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Today it is ruling the state of UP.
Previous decade has been a period of turbulence for Muslims. They were sought to be targeted in the name of war on terror both within India and internationally. Revolution in the field of information technology and oil boom of the Middle East has fizzled out the agenda of cultural proselytisation and economic deprivation against Muslims of India. Those who targeted Muslims stand exposed now. Futility of this exercise has dawned to the world. A positive atmosphere of reconciliation with Muslims is emerging. Formulation of a positive political agenda at this juncture can help you to avail the benefits of this atmosphere.
Towards the end I wish to convey the Kashmiri students Aligarh Muslim University to dedicate their energies in contributing to Kashmir cause in field of academics. In spite some nice attempts in the area of fiction there exists a huge deficit in the field of serious research. Fiction can’t be substitute for facts. Projection of facts demands dedicated research and Aligarh Muslim University provides an excellent atmosphere for it. Avail this atmosphere to the best of your abilities. The breeze that originates from Aligarh has potential of shaping the destiny of nations Kashmir can’t be an exception to this phenomenon. After all it happens to be land of maternal ancestors of SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN.
Note: This is the speech delivered Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain on 15th March 2011 in a seminar organised by Aligarh Muslim University Students Union in Kennedy Hall Auditorium of AMU on Kashmir.

Geelani – portrait of a life

Vular Kinaray – A Review

WITHOUT SOME NEEDLESS DETAILS WHICH AUTHOR SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED TO GO IN, THE DOCUMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE POWERFUL, MORE INTIMATE AND MORE EFFECTIVE, WRITES DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

The tradition of writing autobiographies is old. In previous epochs with few means of entertainment and information they remained popular substitute to poetic epics. Babar wrote his autobiography and it remains an important source of history of that era. Jahangir too wrote one and it again serves as a source of medieval history.
In recent past we have seen Sheikh Abdulla writing his biography when he became politically irrlevant and the autobiography provided an excuse for that irrlevance . Ayoub Khan resorted to writing of “Friends not Masters”.. In immediate past we witnessed General Musharraf writing his “In the line of fire”. Despite these apologies the three could not escape the wrath of public either prior to or after their death.
Latest in this series remains “Wular Kinare” of Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Minute personal details and engagements of Geelani with Jama’at activity have made it lengthy and a cumbersome read. Despite this, its first edition was completely sold out within a week. Those who were keen to read it included whole of Civil and Military elites of every shade of opinion. The way book has been received is not surely the merit of the book rather that of the personality who has authored it.
I had a privilege of going through the book while it was in early stages of its preparation. The author wanted me to go through it and suggest any changes that may be needed. I was too small a person to resort to any major transformation of the script. I however, did suggest trimming down of the manuscript by deleting unnecessary personal details and narration of Geelani Sahab’s preoccupations with Jama’at work. Geelani sahab did agree to looking at the script, however, as mentioned by him in the preface receptiveness to this suggestion got dwarfed in front of the praise that his writings received from those who are in his proximity.
The book continues to be over burdened with minute personal details, repetition of discourses (Roudad of Jamma’at programs). Both these aspects already remain covered in some of his previous writtings. Where as some new revelations do exist within the script but personally, I would have liked Geelani Sahab to devote more of his time in devising strategies and formulating plans relating to present and future. He remains the rallying point and a ray of hope for a beleaguered nation that is consistently exposed to shocks of ever changing cycles of expectations and depressions. It is unfortunate that documentation of people’s miseries remains last priority of pro-freedom leadership, where as personal incidents pre-occupy their attention. When we plead Kashmir cause, we are asked to furnish details of our dead, tortured, detained, disappeared, violated, and not the information as to from whom Geelani sahib purchased poplars for construction of his house. This documentation to the delight of our tormentors is neither pursued nor facilitated by our leadership. Revolutionaries do not remain bothered and pre-occupied with past. They remain pre-occupied with coping up ordeals of present and engaged in shaping destiny of future of their nations.
Autobiographies do become a source of inspiration for new generations but it is ultimately the achievements and resilience of a leader that make him indispensable for future. History judges everyone not on the basis of his autobiography but on the basis of his ultimate contributions and steadfastness. Geelani Sahab has an impeccable past; he does not need to elaborate on it. Kashmir has already acknowledged it. What matters however, remains his capacity to influence the future. Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah too received support and admiration during his lifetime. What made him a villain after his demise was the web within which his nation found itself and accredited it to his account. Options for Geelani sahab remain the same that is to get swayed by the present euphoria and be condemned by future generations or be oblivious to past and present, orient the resistance so that Kashmir is able to get out of the subjugation within which it feels itself trapped.
Success for leaders is not assessed by their practical achievements but by the steadfastness and their capacity of remaining focussed during ups and downs of struggle. It is precisely this quality of Omar Mukhtar that made him a hero whereas huge achievements in terms of Land reforms, provision of medical facilities and erection of domes couldn’t rescue Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. Given the fact that Geelani sahab has already compiled a plethora of information about himself let the job of ascertaining his real worth be left to contemporary chroniclers. Let Geelani Sahab give priority to articulation of a future; The future for which generations have perished, the future that has remained and remains our dream, the future that awaits us.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 31 July 2011

The practitioner of Islamic Polity

The second volume of the autobiography sheds light on Geelani as a political leader

Book: Wular Kinaray – II
Author: Syed Ali Shah Geelani
Publisher: Millat Publications Hyderpora
Price: Rs 450
Reviewer: Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain

Literature can be divided into three categories in terms of content. The first category obviously remains the literature of ideas. The second is the literature about events. The third category pertains to literature on individuals. A biography definitely falls within the last category. But despite Wular Kinaray being a biography it can’t be exclusively placed within the third category. Syed Ali Shah Geelani is not a man of Ideas only but has spent whole of his life in pursuit of an idea. The idea of Islamic polity, which in the words of Iqbal “is the realization of the spiritual in human organization.” Maududi provided it an elaborate interpretation and Geelani dedicated his life for realization of this idea within the space and time of Kashmir. Since the status quo remains an impediment in realization of this idea, he is pitted against it for past six decades. It is conviction to an ideal that makes Geelani distinct from other cotemporaries and enables him to confront General Musharaf like his mentor Saad-u-Din who refused to budge the line of General Zia-ul-Haq on Kashmir.  The biography of author thus remains replete with references to Quran, hadith, poetry of Iqbal (RA) and writings of Maududi. The present volume adds poetry of Faiz Ahmed Faiz; this  being relevant in the sense that Geelani too spent most of his decade long prison life during the time period covered in this volume. This volume unlike first received a mute response at first instance. Thanks to the statement of Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front, it too became subject of debate and received a vast publicity and the market.
I had the privilege of going through first volume of Wular Kinaray prior to its publication. I made certain observations some of which were accepted by the author whereas others didn’t find his favor. He mentioned it in the preface of the first volume. I too put my observations on record while reviewing the first volume in the columns of Greater Kashmir. For the reasons best known to the author and his publisher, the second volume was only dispatched to me after being sent to the press. The first volume mostly pertained to personal life of Geelani and his pre-occupations with the work of Jama’t Islami. The second volume is more important as it pertains to life of Geelani as a political leader. The first volume though written loosely didn’t carry any factual mistakes, these however remain associated with present volume. One can easily notice it while going through the event related to his efforts for adoption of a legislative assembly resolution after demise of Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Geelani sahib mentions that he had asked Sheikh Sahib to facilitate a condolence resolution on the same lines as was passed in context of the death of Imam Khomeini. Geelani’s memory has failed in narrating this event as Khomeini expired after the death of both Maududi and Sheikh Abdullah. This weakness in narration becomes obvious in context of geography as well. He refers river Neelam (Kishan Ganga) thrice as river Sindh. Weakness in the domain of history and geography can land leaders to misjudge the events and draw wrong conclusions. These mistakes could have been overcome hadn’t the publisher monopolized the proof reading. Despite some factual errors, the volume is indispensable for understanding the present day politics of Kashmir. 
 The volume is compact in terms of its language and style of narration. First hand information on certain issues makes it easy to understand his position and role in politics. He did fight elections as a member of Jama’t abiding by its decisions. The election however didn’t lead to change of his stance relating to Kashmir. Consequently he had to face imprisonment as an MLA at least thrice for a considerable period of time and was charged once with the offence of challenging accession of Kashmir to India. He acknowledges the fact that he did ask people to sell their TV sets and purchase arms for self-defense. He along with other politicians nevertheless faced detention as soon as insurgency erupted in Kashmir. Geelani remained in jail when Mirwaiz Molvi Farooq was assassinated. He again was in jail when Qazi Nisar was assassinated. Same holds true about other similar events of early 90s.
Another important aspect of the book pertains to his ordeals during imprisonment, the torture and third degree treatment which he experienced in interrogation centers is a reflection of the gravity of the human rights situation that prevails in Kashmir. If a person who has been prominent leader of opposition in the legislature and the one who has been member of legislature thrice faces such a third degree torture, one can understand what can be the fate of an ordinary detainee. 
As an MLA, he did raise voice against vices of liquor, deliberated on issues of legitimacy of accession and faced detention but one doesn’t notice activism beyond these domains within the legislative tenure of Geelani. This may be because of lack of feedback and articulation needed for such an endeavor. Geelani sahib has been graceful in narrating his engagements with those about whom he often remains critical. He narrates everything positive that he came across in his engagements with Sheikh Abdullah and other politicians of his times. In spite of suffering in every possible way during National Conference rule he visited Sheikh Abdullah during his last illness and participated in his funeral as well. ….  While doing so he minces no words about his stand on various issues. 
One last word, price of the book is too high for a student and needs to be taken care of through publication of student edition.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 15 Nov 2012

Tinderbox of Errors

Reliance over secondary sources and driven by a selfish motive, MJ Akbar has committed error after error

COMMENT BY DR SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

Majority community of India has a minority complex. They often feel that they will be dominated by Muslims as they were prior to advent of British. This sense of insecurity is exploited by RSS to rally Hindus around various extensions of Sangh Parivar. After independence of India RSS and its extensions suffered euphoria of revival – revival of Akhand Bharat, from Bali in Indonesia to Bamiyan in Afghanistan. Creation of Pakistan was perceived to be a temporary phenomenon. This perception was shared by Nehru as well who thought that after six months Pakistan will beg for reunion with India.  When Pakistan survived for years it was used as a phobia to mobilize Hindus both by RSS and the Congress.
 In 1971 Pakistan got fragmented as a result of Indo-Soviet intrigue against Pakistani role of facilitating US China proximity. Indians were overtaken by the impression that the remaining Pakistan will submit to Indian Hegemony and will be unable to sustain itself after segregation of its eastern wing. Even so called moderates within the Sangh Parivar, like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, went to the extent of describing Indira Gandhi as an incarnation of Durga for her role in dismembering Pakistan. To the dismay of everyone within India, Pakistan again survived and within a decade became instrumental in changing the course of History in two ways. It for the first time managed to block an invading Soviet army at Khyber. It was unlike the established convention of five thousand years in the history of the sub-continent. Every invader after reaching Khyber would invariably move to Panipat and the rest followed. Pakistan not only blocked the entry of Soviet Union within the sub-continent but also became instrumental in getting it dismantled. During that era it utilized its proximity to the West for pursuing its nuclear designs. 
By virtue of being in power at the time of nuclear tests by Pakistan, none other than BJP knows the implications of this phenomenon. It has become clear now that it was Pakistan which was planning to test its nuclear weapons and India in order to pre-empt the psychological implications of these resorted to nuclear experiments in 1998. So many question marks have been put upon success of these hurriedly conducted tests by none other than the Indian scientists involved. Most of the western defense experts  concede that in  nuclear technology Pakistan is far ahead of India and is likely to overtake France in near future. It is on this account that world powers are bent upon destabilizing and isolating Pakistan on the same pattern as they did with China after its first nuclear test. India too had to impose emergency in order to overcome destabilization that followed its nuclear test in 1974.  
 Jinnah’s assertion that nations are equal irrespective of their size became a reality. BJP geared up to reconcile with this reality.  Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore. BJP reconciled to the two nation theory of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and proceeded to re-understand and rehabilitate Mohammad Ali Jinnah within the Indian political thought process. Statements of LK Advani and write ups of Jaswant Singh about Jinnah were aimed at this re-understanding. BJP as an organization now stands reconciled to Muslim nationalism of which Jinnah was the biggest expression. BJP is in a process of orienting itself in tune with this reconciliation. The reconciliation however, plunges it into a paradox. Having thrived on negative sentiment of Muslim phobia for decades raison deter of its existence stands threatened. It needs a phobia to keep its flock together and rally Hindus around it.  
The phobia of Muslim League and Pakistan can’t be sustained. A new phobia needs to be discovered to substitute it. This discovery has been made by MJ Akbar through his book “Tinderbox: the past and future of Pakistan” with all positives for Mohammad Ali Jinnah, in line with the views of Advani and Jaswant Singh, he discovers Maulana Maudoudi as Godfather of Pakistan. Maudoudi was the pioneer of Islamic revivalism, but opposed nationalism in all its forms. He wrote against Indian nationalism and did provide ideological foundations for modern Muslim political thought. He, however, in the same breath opposed Muslim nationalism. While Muslims for Jinnah remain a nation likely to be overshadowed by a rival Hindu nation - thus in need of a nation state of their own -  for Maudoudi, Muslims were not a nation but an ideological group, upholders of a way of life. Every non-Muslim for Maudoudi remains a potential Muslim. With this paradigm he could hardly, envision Hindus and Muslims as competing nationalities. He did subscribe to the notion of Pakistan as an Islamic state after its creation but he had same vision for India too. Instead of winding up his organization on the pattern of Muslim League his Jamat-e-Islami continues to work in India and remains a vanguard of Islamic renaissance. M J Akbar misrepresents Maududi goes to the extent of printing Mufti Mahmud’s picture in his place in pursuit of inventing new demon for BJP. On page 60 Akbar writes that Genral Zia attended the funeral of Maududi while the reality is that he attended funeral of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan & skipped that of Maududi -  Akbar’s “ god father of Pakistan. 
The chapter pertaining to Kashmir too is replete with similar errors. Author’s understanding of Jamat-i-Islami, Tableegi Jamat, Taliban & and their mutual differences,  remains fallacious on account of reliance on secondary sources .
 MJ Akbar tended to be an ideologue of Congress during the days of his association with Telegraph. Like Najma Heptullah, he shifted his focus towards BJP after non-fulfillment of his ambitions within Congress. He through this book tries to substitute ‘Muslim Phobia’ with ‘Islamophobia’ for BJP and Sangh Parivar.  In this pursuit he resorts to apologetic historiography, misinterprets and concocts it in so many ways including his depiction of Maudoudi as Godfather of Pakistan. The revolution which has dawned to the world through information technology makes it impossible for parties to survive on phobias. The West tried to thrive on Islamophobia after the demise of communism, the strategy boomeranged and Islam became the fastest growing religion within US even after 9/11.  Despite the services of MJ Akbar, BJP can’t be an exception to this phenomenon. The book may, however, help facilitation of MJ Akbar’s acceptability as ideologue of Sangh parivar on Muslim affairs as he tends to prove himself more Sanghi than Sangh.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 23 Aug 2011

Kashmir Resistance Between 9/11 and 2011

by 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 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 Abdullah was dismissed from Prime Ministership and detained.
For a while, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad managed to camouflage the resistance through his cultural carnivals and his googa 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 saparation. Indian state, 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. Indian state responded with promises of negotiated settlement while at the same time using ruthless force to suppress the insurgency. Narsima 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 Mufti’s 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 proceeded 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 Kashmir Dispatch dated 01 Nov 2010

A package without content

Why didn't PM announce it when all was well in Kashmir

KASHMIR BY DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

After two months of bloodshed and mass mobilization, Manmohan Singh finally uttered a few words on Kashmir. One wonders as to why it took so long for PM to express his views on Kashmir despite the fact that the mobilization in Kashmir had reached such an extent that mobs were targeting everything that symbolized India in every nook and corner of the valley. Had it not been the intervention of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, things would have taken an ugly and irrevocable turn by the time Manmohan Singh responded. The speech of Prime Minister was in chaste Urdu which he as well as Kashmiris understand better, but instead of addressing the problem he kept his focus on symptoms. He did not use the term stone pelters for agitating people nor did attribute mobilization to foreign hand as was done by his Home Minister. He did not mention that the mobilization is confined to few assembly constituencies or Police stations as his Chief Minister of the State would like him to believe. He acknowledged that Kashmir is a political problem and needs to be addressed politically. The solutions suggested by him however didn’t go beyond Autonomy and Economic packages. He offered some lollipops to the boys who he felt remained alienated from India. He mentioned that Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) can be modified. All these measures according to him can be pursued only when there is peace and younger generation of Kashmir returns to Schools, Colleges and Universities.

            One may ask why Manmohan Singh didn’t address these issues during his previous visit to Kashmir when the valley was relatively peaceful and boys and girls of the valley remained within their educational institutions and Prime Minister had a chance to address them at SKUAST-K (Sher-e Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology). At that juncture he simply confined himself to address the issues relating to development and scarcity of commodities. Elaboration for this attitude of Prime Minister was provided by a columnist of a National Daily that he did not need to do so as everything in Kashmir was moving positively towards strengthening the Status Quo. The peace which he perceives to be indispensable for any political package was at that time interpreted to be a symbol of Kashmiri acceptance to their association with India. It is not for the first time that Manmohan Singh expressed about inhuman dimensions of AFSPA. In 2005 during his address on Aug 15, he had uttered similar words and promised to make Armed Forces Special Powers Act sensitive to Human Rights. Why New Delhi didn’t take any action in this direction for past five years though the peace it aspires today did exist.

            There is nothing new in the promise of Autonomy. The offer of Manmohan Singh was preceded by “anything within the ambit of Humanity” by Atal Bihari Vajpayee and “sky is the Limit” of self rule of Kashmiris by Narsimha Rao. Both these promises were made when India  was facing adverse situation on the ground. Nothing concrete came out of these declarations as soon as militancy was contained and mass upsurge in Kashmir became dormant. This in spite of the fact that National Conference sent a detailed Report on Autonomy to New Delhi after its adoption by the State Legislature. Having seen the fate of previous promises and NC proposals, how Kashmiris can be expected to take the latest promises made by Manmohan Singh seriously. The issue of Autonomy has another dimension as well. Kashmir had Autonomy prior to 1953. Its relation with Indian Union dejure remained confined to Defense, Currency, Foreign Affairs and Communication. The de facto situation even at that juncture enabled India to dismiss the Prime Minister and get him arrested through a local police officer. Article 370 of the Indian constitution provided that any changes in these relations can only be made with the concurrence of the State Constituent Assembly, New Delhi kept extending its constitutional provisions to Jammu and Kashmir even after abolition of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957. The issue of Autonomy thus pertains to restoring what has been grabbed even within the parameters of Article 370. This can be achieved by an ordinary person through Public Interest Litigation from the Supreme Court. The rider of unanimity associated with the promise is an oblique reference to concurrence of people of Jammu and Ladakh.

Such references and conditions remain ingrained in the concoction that people of Non Muslim dominated Districts of Jammu and Ladakh can feel insecure in autonomous state of Jammu and Kashmir. If Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh can feel insecure in Autonomous state of Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmiri Muslims remain justified to feel insecure within India. The socio-economic indicators of progress of Jammu and Ladakh belie the apprehensions of Jammu and Ladakh whereas; horrifying experience of Kashmiri association with India substantiates their argument for secession.

The statement of Manmohan Singh has no takers in Kashmir; Syed Ali Shah Geelani rejected it. Moderates who in past put their popularity on stake for participation in dialogue too discarded it. In such a scenario the one option that remains with New Delhi is to proceed towards this formulation of Autonomy unilaterally or with the concurrence of its assumed “representative government” in J&K. Given the fact that Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) is opposing this formulation on inception it remains doubtful whether Manmohan Singh can proceed to enact it even if he wishes. The tragedy with Bhartiya Janata Party is that it proceeds for ceasefire with Hizbul Mujahideen and sending Jaswant Singh to Kandahar while in power. Once out of power the same party advocates scrapping of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution while its parent body Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sang (RSS) advocates change of Kashmir Demography. Positive approach of Communists however can still facilitate the Package provided Prime Minister Manmohan Singh means what he says other option is to accept the demands of demilitarization, release of prisoners, withdrawal AFSPA and set a time frame for a meaningful dialogue as demanded by Mirwaiz. Separatist voices of Kashmir can’t be expected to subside unless the dominant sentiment of Kashmiris is addressed. Urge for self determination continues to become irresistible with every death of innocent and on every sight of instruments of oppression be they in the form of Army, Rapid Action Force (RAF) or Paramilitary Forces.

Published in Greater Kashmir dated 18 Aug 2010

Indian interpretation of quit J&K movement

by DR. SHEIKH SHOWKAT HUSSAIN

Quit Jammu and Kashmir Movement was apparently conceived during Amarnath land row agitation (2008). Shopian double rape and murder case (2009) and its mismanagement provided Hurriyat Conference (G) an avenue of experimenting it. The plan was executed in 2010. In terms of its intensity it surpassed Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 and Quit India Movement of 1942.

The level of mobilization which Kashmir is experiencing remains unparalleled in Kashmir History. Moi-e-Muqadas agitation (1963) and Amarnath land row saw a mobilization but not as determined prolonged and widespread as Kashmir is experiencing today.
In Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 the centre of activity remained Khanqah-e-Maula and Pather Masjid. Every mosque of Kashmir from Kangan to Kishtiwar reverberates with slogans of Azaadi nowadays. There were twenty two recorded deaths during Quit Kashmir Movementmostly in Srinagar. Nowadays, police firing is causing death everywhere from Trehgam to Kulgam. The movement refuses to die down despite 104 deaths and arrest of thousands of youth and political workers. This huge mobilization has invoked a lot of media attention. It has triggered a Kashmir centric discourse both within Indian Parliament and its mass media. The projection however, instead of acknowledging it as a mobilization for freedom and reflection of peoples aspiration of self determination manipulates it and tries to give it varying interpretations conducive to protection of Indian interests.
In the early phases of this movement the mobilization was attributed to power politics between National Conference (NC) and its rival Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Early debates relating to Kashmir situation saw Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti pitted against one another on talk shows. One elaborating it as mechanization of an irresponsible opposition, while other describing it as fallout of administrative mismanagement. Essence of the discourse surrounded around the idea that an opposition party PDP is doing it in order to see the Chief Minister out. Syed Ali Shah Geelani pricked this propaganda balloon soon after his release by stating that resistance perceives everyone ruling Kashmir as puppet of New Delhi and is least bothered about the power politics between pro Indian parties. Recent discourse of Farooq Abdullah attributing stone throwing to funding of PDP is an attempt to give a new lease of life to this interpretation.
The next projection of ‘Quit J&K Movement’ came from Indian home minister himself who ascribed the stone throwing to foreign hand operating in the form of ISI and Lashkar-e-Toiba. The pathetic situation of Pakistan on account of unprecedented floods nullified this interpretation and none in the world was impressed by it. Strong exception taken by foreign minister of Pakistan to similar statements emanating in context of Hotel Taj attack of Mumbai 7/11 and subsequent snub that Indian home secretary received from PM office put the last nail in the coffin of this discourse. In his next statement before Indian Parliament home minister acknowledged that J&K state was experiencing Quit J&K Movement and people are demanding Azaadi.
The acknowledgement however, did not halt the campaign of misinterpretation launched by Indian media against ‘Quit J&K Movement’. The movement was described as an outburst of anarchic stone throwing youth which were not under the control of anyone and bent upon a senseless rampage and devastation. This interpretation too fizzled out as soon as the spree of arson came to an end by a single statement of the ailing Hurriyat Leader. Syed Ali Shah Geelani who withstood Indian oppression and General Musharraf’s manipulations made it clear that he can’t tolerate the deviant behavior of those who are involved in the freedom struggle. Next elaboration was much more nefarious. Indian media tried to exploit and experiment age old divide and rule colonial tactics. Some misplaced utterances of Moulana Abaas Ansari were highlighted as if there was a substantial divide between Shias and Sunnis. For a day Indian news channels continued to telecast “good news” from Kashmir that Shias are going to create their own Hurriyat Conference and there is an emerging divide between different sects of Muslims relating to the freedom struggle. This “good news” turned out to be a nightmare for the colonial mindset when people from Shia dominated Zadibal area asked Mirwaiz Umar Farooq to organize a rally within the area and Shia population gave vent to their aspiration for Azaadi in an unequivocal manner. The interpretation of division within Muslim Community thus doomed. State sponsored Media had to invent a new campaign against the ongoing uprising.
Sikhs in Kashmir lived here during peak of militancy and shared the ordeals of the conflict along with their Muslim neighbours. Apart from the agency managed incidents of Chattisinghpora no Sikh ever experienced any problem during whole era of militancy. Despite attempts of the state to motivate Sikhs to migrate from Kashmir, the community refused migration out rightly and tied its destiny to the fate of Kashmiri society as a whole. They were not motivated to leave Kashmir even by luxurious packages showered upon Kashmiri Pandit migrants by the Indian state. Kashmiris remain grateful to this community and have no reason to get pitted against it. Some mysterious letters written to members of the community were blown out of proportion in order to portray Kashmirresistance as a communal movement. It is unfortunate that the politicians who have failed to penalize perpetrators of a carnage involving massacre of thousands of Sikhs in the aftermath of Indra Gandhi’s assassination in 1986 started to shed crocodile tears for the community in Kashmir. Sikhs sensing the mischief instead of invoking state protection reached out to Hurriyat leadership, thus, foiled this distortion of Kashmirresistance as well.
Having failed on this account media version of Kashmir resistance got reoriented. Aspiration of Kashmiris for Azaadi was acknowledged but Kashmiris were portrayed as a divided lot. The Azaadi sentiment was projected to be the sole ‘Quit Jammu and Kashmir Movement’ was apparently conceived during Amarnath land row agitation (2008). Shopian double rape and murder case (2009) and its mismanagement provided Hurriyat Conference (G) an avenue of experimenting it. The plan was executed in 2010. In terms of its intensity it surpassed Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 and Quit India Movement of 1942. The level of mobilization which Kashmir is experiencing remains unparalleled in Kashmir History. Moi-e-Muqadas agitation (1963) and Amarnath land row saw a mobilization but not as determined prolonged and widespread as Kashmir is experiencing today.
In Quit Kashmir Movement of 1946 the centre of activity remained Khanqah-e-Maula and Pather Masjid. Every mosque of Kashmir from Kangan to Kishtiwar reverberates with slogans of Azaadi nowadays. There were twenty two recorded deaths during Quit Kashmir Movementmostly in Srinagar. Nowadays, police firing is causing death everywhere from Trehgam to Kulgam. The movement refuses to die down despite 104 deaths and arrest of thousands of youth and political workers. This huge mobilization has invoked a lot of media attention. It has triggered a Kashmir centric discourse both within Indian Parliament and its mass media. The projection however, instead of acknowledging it as a mobilization for freedom and reflection of peoples aspiration of self determination manipulates it and tries to give it varying interpretations conducive to protection of Indian interests.

Published in Kashmir Dispatch dated 01 Nov 2010