|
|
Unfortunately, the author
pursues this explanation in fits and starts and soon becomes a
prisoner of the daily headlines from various newspapers and
statements of the partisan politicians. Thus an analysis of
his theory would reveal that he is not even very sure of the
role played by Sheikh Abdullah. He oscillates between the view
that the "Indian psyche" of the Kashmiris started
diminishing when he was removed from power and arrested in
1953. But he is also accused of rigging the election to the
Assembly in 1951, where most the members belonging to his
party were returned unopposed as their opponents’ nomination
papers were rejected on technical grounds. This single
incident should have been enough to deprive the Sher-e-Kashmir
of being attributed with democratic spirit, and therefore not
to be deemed to be speaking on behalf of the people of the
state.
It is
pertinent to point out that the same kind of
"dubious" election was conducted by his successor,
Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, but contrary to the sympathetic
treatment that Sheikh Abdullah gets from historians, he has to
carry the burden of that ignominy for all times to come. The
author makes no mention of the elections of 1962, 1967 and
1972, which brought to power Congress governments led by
Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq and Mir Qasim. The former gave the best
possible government to the state and made serious attempts to
narrow regional disparities and the latter, even though in
comfortable majority, paved way for the return of Sheikh
Abdullah and the installation of a minority government. The
same Sheikh, who had rigged a massive majority in 1951, is now
credited with conducting the only fair election of 1977!
The author,
however, for inexplicable reasons, missed out an opportunity
to analyse the events leading to the Sheikh’s removal. He
misses out that from day one the battle was not between
Muslims and Hindus but between Kashmiris and Dogras. The
dismantling of the feudal structure in the state did not
affect the Kashmiri Pandits, as the author suggests, but the
Dogras, who lived in the valley as jagirdars. This group has
been erroneously described by him as "absentee
landlords", because not being hereditary land-owners,
they used to move with the durbar to Srinagar during the
summer months and to Jammu during the winter. The
beneficiaries of the abolition of jagirdari system and
implementation of the land ceiling Act were not just the
Muslims of the valley but thousands of tenants in the Jammu
region too.
Events could
have been under control if only the Sheikh had a more
representative and broad-based government, the author
concedes. But what he does not mention is that the reforms
initiated by his Revenue Minister Mirza Afzal Beg were backed
by the creation of new revenue districts which were blatantly
aimed at tilting demography in favour of Muslims. A classic
example is of Kargil in Ladakh which should have remained
predominantly Buddhist. Thus, when the implementation of Naya
Kashmir transformed from feudalism to modernism to Kashmiri
versus Dogra and finally because of sheer numbers of Muslim
versus Hindus, the reaction in Jammu erupted in the form of
the Praja Parishad agitation. This undoubtedly, as the author
says, rattled and unnerved the Kashmiri Muslims who had not
ruled the state for the past seven centuries. The phantom of
Hindu domination probably pushed Sheikh Abdullah towards
toying with the idea of independence.
It is
unfortunate that the author has little to say on the
alienation or the ethnic ambitions during the period after the
exit of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed and the return of Sheikh
Abdullah. He also fails to analyse why so soon after his
return a section of the Kashmiris were so excited by the
English movie "The Lion of the Desert", portraying
the life and death of Omar Bukhtar, the Libyan leader who
preferred death to compromising with French for power, that it
had to be banned in the state. That, no doubt, was a precursor
of the events that were to follow when the death anniversary
of the Sher-e-Kashmir came to be observed as "deliverance
day" and his grave had to be guarded round the clock.
This clearly
indicates that there is a sizeable population in the valley
which has unfulfilled ambitions within the Indian state. This
section would not mind heaping insults on the person of Sheikh
Abdullah if his politics is at variance with theirs. The
question is how large is this section. Certainly not large
enough for the author to believe that the whole valley
considers the Indian Army as an occupation force. But
certainly their number is considerable which was demonstrated
by the Muslim United Front in the Assembly election in 1987,
when it secured 32 per cent vote. Unfortunately, as the author
has rightly noted, it yielded only four seats and three narrow
misses. Undoubtedly there were irregularities in the polls, as
they are everywhere in the country, but the frustration and
desperation here was ripe for exploitation. Thirtytwo per cent
is a large number ov voters whose aspirations cannot be
ignored and whose grievances have to be urgently addressed.
The author
offers "Kashmiriat" as a solution to the problem.
This makes one suspect if he fully comprehends the multi-culturalism
and geographical and religious diversity of the state and the
fact that the boundaries of the state are but an accident of
the 19th century. In a valley which has seen communal harmony
only during the Sikh-Dogra rule of 128 years, the much-touted
Rishi cult and the modern terminology of "Kashmiriat"
is nothing but an effort to give respectability to the Muslim
separatists in the state. Perhaps the author would have
offered some thing else if he had analysed the period of
Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq in as great a detail as he has done the
post-Sheikh Abdullah period, where undoubtedly the political
leaders in general and Congress leaders in particular emerge
as short-sighted, greedy of power and unscrupulous.
Similarly,
when he apportions all the blame to "the centrist drive
of the Indian state and acute regional economic
imbalances" for the trouble in North-East and the
decade-long militancy and terrorism in Punjab, one wonders if
the learned professor is not being too simplistic. He points
out that 9/10ths of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1987(?)
dealt with issues related to water and Punjabi-speaking areas,
which the Centre refused to address. Professor Das needs to be
told that for more than five years the Akali Dal has been in
power in the state and all these years there has not only been
a friendly government in New Delhi, but they have been sharing
power for the past three years. And, yet, no visible effort
has been made by them to resolve any of the problems which
they accused the earlier central governments of ignoring to
spite the Sikhs. Would it not then suggest that the perceived
regional imbalances are often magnified and blown out of
proportion and are a ruse for the politicians to grind their
own axe?
The Sind
issue is relatively simple in comparison and, perhaps because
of this, inspires pity and sympathy both for the Sindhis and
the Muhajirs. The fate they have landed themselves in is not
their own making and yet ironically both had worked for it.
The author is on a surer ground while dealing with this
chapter, since it is a subject which is not influenced by our
everyday prejudices and biases. Moreover, the dependence here
is less on contemporary reporting and more on scholarly works
which trace Sindhi nationalism, their contempt for betel
chewing Muhajirs, and corresponding confidence of the latter
who for all practical pruposes created Pakistan and lost their
homes.
It is
possible that Sind could have gone the Bangladesh way, but for
the fact that the demography of the province blocks such an
eventuality. The large population of the Muhajirs has ensured
that the Sindhis and the Muhajirs can bleed each other to
death but the creation of Sind as a country is not possible.
Moreover the proximity of Punjab ensures that timely support
and help reaches to the central forces there. However, turmoil
in Sind has threatened disintegration of Pakistan for long,
peaking during the repressive rule of President Zia-ul-Haq.
But, as the author has rightly pointed out, when the regional
aspirations are adequately attended to and opposing interests
are reconciled, there is little room for continued disquiet.
He has noted that with the emergence of the Pakistan People’s
Party, the Sindhi identity realised that after all there is a
meeting ground between them and the Punjabi-dominated
Pakistani nationalism. Similarly, after years of antagonism
the Muhajirs too are learning to assimilate themselves in and
absorb the local influences, which will make them less of an
alien there.
Professor Suranjan Das is
more profound in his conclusion that both the Kashmir and the
Sind problems "demonstrate that the nation-building
strategy cannot easily redefine political or imagined
communities if the constituent elements perceive the process
to be inimical to their interests and aspirations." It
calls for wise leaders who inspire and lead their people to a
new tomorrow, or else in the case of ethnic and state
boundaries not converging, the members of the disaffected
ethnic communities would tend to purge their imposed national
identities. This often, as in the case of Kashmir, makes them
to assert their identity in conjunction with their compatriots
across the artificial national boundaries.
|
