Kashmir Exodus
 |
  |
|
In our 35 years of trials and tribulations, the displaced Kashmiri Pandit community has seen little transformation in Kashmir that would make the environment conducive for our return to our roots. Looking back at our exodus from a historical perspective, one can safely say that our community failed to interpret the meaning and significance of important historical developments that shaped the subcontinent in general and Kashmir in particular in early thirties and beyond. In hindsight, it can be said that with every passing day since 1930, Kashmiri Pandit’s continued presence in Kashmir, its ancient land, was becoming increasingly untenable.
A Kashmiri Pandits’ ethnic cleansing from Kashmir has been the result of Islamic majoritarian assertion, mostly (but not always) executed violently. Other methods employed, depending on the situation, achieved the same objective; permanent displacement from Kashmir, turning us into dispossessed people and refugees in our own country. After the end of Afghan rule in 1819, many generations of our community had overcome the trauma of brutal violence that we faced then. However, in the early thirties, the ghost of falling a victim to Islamic terror once again returned to haunt us. The events orchestrated by powers that shaped the history and geography of the subcontinent then, and which continues to reshape it now and will continue to do so in the not-so-distant future, had invariably one fall-out: our displacement. We, as a community, became an expendable commodity for those who shaped these events, be it in Kashmir, New Delhi or London and later in Karachi, Rawalpindi or Islamabad. We would be overlooking a stark truth if we did not accept that as a community, we failed to interpret the significance of these events that literally sealed our fate. Even though the power equations after the end of WWII changed, Kashmir continued to be treated as a cake, a piece of which everyone wanted to have. In that cake we were an indigestible intrusion which needed to be cast aside. Let us go over some important milestones that shaped the politics in the last half century of British rule in India. The most significant development was the rise of Muslim communalism. Much against the conventional narrative that holds some later-day Muslim intelligentsia as being the catalysts and the engine of this rise and spread of communal politics, it was, actually, the then Principal of the Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, Mr Beck, who organized The Mohammedan Defence Association in 1893, with the sole objective of preventing Muslims from joining the Indian National Congress, thus playing a significant role in distancing Muslims from Hindus. It was his enunciation of the two-nation theory that converted Sir Syed Ahmad Khan from a nationalist into a staunch Muslim communalist. Creation of Muslim League on Dec 31, 1906, soon after the partition of Bengal into Hindu and Muslim provinces, advocacy of separate electorates and homeland for Muslims by Choudhary Rehmat Ali, the bright young Indian Muslim student at Cambridge, in 1932-33, further helped this Muslim consolidation. Allama Iqbal later endorsed this demand. Muslim League, thereafter, embraced this concept and demanded the implementation of Minto-Morley reforms which had recommended separate electorate for both communities. Consequentially, the rise of Muslim communalism in the subcontinent did not leave Kashmir untouched, though here, the earliest seeds of Muslim communalism had been sown by Ahrar Party, formed exclusively of radical Muslims of Punjab. This had created bitterness between Hindus and Muslims, particularly in Jammu. However, the turning point in Kashmir was reached in July 1931. Let us shift for a while to the interests of British Crown, which exercised the paramount powers over Jammu and Kashmir. During the nineteenth and twentieth century, The British always perceived a threat to their Indian empire from Russia, whose Czar had been expanding its territory relentlessly and, in some ways, eyed the Indian subcontinent too. This resulted in a diplomatic confrontation called the Great Game, involving the contesting claims between Britain and Russia/ later USSR to gain influence in the area lying between Turkey and India. After the WWII, Stalin, after his forceful victory over Germany, had already started extending his influence in the countries in eastern Europe. On its southern border lay the bigger prize, the region of Parsian Gulf, with its oil wells, which Sir Olaf Carew, who had been the Secretary of the foreign affairs of British India before taking over as the Governor of the North West Frontier Province, called the ‘wells of power’. It was due to this feverish contest after World War II, when both tried to look for military bases and partners to strengthen their claims, that Britain, the Paramount Power, demanded to physically occupy the northern most outpost of their empire, the Gilgit Agency. Whereas the British were quite clear about what their geopolitical interests were and how they needed to protect these, the Congress leadership was, by and large, ignorant of the geopolitical imperatives shaping the world then. India, as a jewel in the British Crown, had played an unparalleled role in the Allies’ eventual victory over the Axis powers. By the end of the WWII, the British had realized India’s geostrategic importance as an invaluable military base from where it could dominate the Indian ocean and the countries around the Persian Gulf. Indian subcontinent also provided the Imperial Army an inexhaustible source of quality manpower. These geopolitical factors deeply influenced the British plans for the future of the subcontinent as Britain was winding up its empire in India. The Congress leadership, however, remained oblivious to the British manipulations aimed at protecting its geopolitical interests by partitioning India and carving out Pakistan. For the Congress the demand for Pakistan was purely a result of Muslim League’s communal politics. In the British scheme of things, no other state under their paramountcy was as crucial as the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The signs of their sensitivity were visible quite early, when during Maharaja Pratap Singh’s rule the brazen and aggressive British assertion became palpable. The Maharaja was accused of hobnobbing with the Russian empire and was, consequently, deposed, even though temporarily. The newly-appointed Resident, Parry S Nisbet, forced him to sign his own resignation. He was re-instated only after the Calcutta -based Amrita Bazaar Patrika published an article, ‘Condemned Unheard’. Even though Maharaja Pratap Singh’s brother, Maharaja Amar Singh was heading the council set up to oversee the administration in the absence of Maharaja Pratap Singh, it was the Resident who called the shots, exercising veto on decisions taken by the council. He even wielded judicial powers to try civil cases! Despite all these pressures exerted on the Maharaja, he refused to hand over any land in the state to the British. During Maharaja Hari Singh’s rule, the British demand to get a foothold in Gilgit became even more intense. But despite repeated pleadings and even arm twisting, Maharaja Hari Singh refused to succumb to such pressure. In fact, he had ensured that the British Military contingent placed in Gilgit was replaced by his own troops. To add insult to injury, the Maharaja had taken a patriotic stand at the first Round Table Conference in London (Nov 12, 1930 to Jan 15, 1931). It was in the backdrop of these developments that the events of July 13, 1931, took place. In many ways the events of this fateful day proved to be a watershed in the recent history of Kashmir. First, it pitchforked Sheikh Abdullah to the forefront of anti-Dogra protest at a crucial point in Kashmir’s history, turning him gradually into a rallying point of a mass movement of sorts. Second, the British got a golden opportunity to use the events to weaken the Dogra Maharaja to such an extent that he felt compelled to hand over Gilgit agency to the British on a long-term lease, with disastrous consequences for India later in 1947. Third, Sheikh Abdullah succeeded in projecting a purely communal movement as a revolt by the oppressed against the feudal Maharaja. This appealed to the stalwarts of the Freedom Movement in India who, thereafter, supported Sheikh Abdullah politically, overlooking his essentially communal agenda. Fourth, the British, having tasted blood, would now onwards play increasingly partisan role to tie the Maharaja’s hands to serve their own strategic interests at a crucial time in history in the ‘Great Game’ being played in the high Himalayas. Lastly, Kashmiri Pandits and other non-Muslims who bore the brunt of the Muslim fury that broke out after the happenings at the Central Jail on July 13, 1931, were left high and dry, something that became a norm, eventually leading to their ethnic cleansing in 1989-90. Therefore, when our community members were assassinated in 1989-90, their death sentences had been issued then, though these were carried out nearly 60 years later. During the last phase of their rule in India, Britain realized that they could not depend on Indian nationalists to provide military cooperation to Britain after India had gained independence. Therefore, they settled for those who were willing to do so. In this they soon realized that religion and Jinnah, who controlled the Muslim League, could be used to detach northwest of India, abutting Iran, Afghanistan and Sinkiang and establish a separate state called Pakistan. The successful use of religion by Britain to fulfill political and strategic objective in India became an important tool of their strategic designs in India. With this in mind they set to work with Jinnah with whom they had established a working relationship during the WWII. With positive signals coming from Jinnah, Britain was convinced that he would cooperate with the British on defence matters if Pakistan was created. Agreement to partition India was announced in New Delhi on June 3, 1947.Following week the British Labour party’s Annual Conference was held at Margate, Britain. Addressing the delegates, Ernest Bevin, the British foreign secretary, stated quite clearly that the Division of India ‘would help consolidate Britain in Middle East.’ Later, developments in Kashmir as a result of the Pakistani invasion of October 22, 1947, State’s accession to India, proceedings at United Nations, declaration of ceasefire, that left 86000 sq Km of the State’s territory with Pakistan, was essentially manipulated by Britain to protect its own interests in this part of the world. That Our leaders could not see through the game was due to their inexperience in dealing with international diplomacy and geostrategy. But it was Kashmiri Pandits who paid the price for their ignorance. In-between this long period from 1931 to 1989, many events took place which marginalized our community gradually, forcing them to seek a safe and better future outside the state. Prior to their latest exodus in 1989–1990, Kashmiri Pandits had been forced out from Kashmir during the Afghan rule (1753–1819). However, thereafter, during the Sikh rule (1819–1846), and then during major portion of the Dogra rule (1846–1947), they did not face any religious persecution. In the twentieth century, the old story repeated itself when on July 13, 1931, Kashmiri Pandits became the victims of the violence let loose by Kashmiri Muslims despite the fact that the latter were ostensibly protesting against the Dogra Maharaja and not Kashmiri Pandits. It was ironic, because Dogra rulers had not particularly favored the Pandits for recruitment into government service. Feeling threatened, neglected and vulnerable, nearly 30,000 to 40,000 families are said to have moved out to other cities of India between 1931–41. Official census figures for 1941 say that Kashmiri Pandits formed 15 per cent of the population of Kashmir, as against 83 per cent Muslims. However, these figures were wide off the mark. It was a well-known fact that those who conducted the census during the Dogra rule, were invariably junior Muslim officials, notorious for describing Kashmiri Pandit families as Muslim households. Actual population of Kashmiri Pandits in 1941, must have been close to 25–30 per cent of the total population. Indeed, the census of 1941 was the first statistical assault on the Kashmiri Pandits in the valley; an ingenious ploy among other methods, used to reduce Kashmiri Pandits to non-entities. After the break-up of Muslim Conference into two factions, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah headed the faction which he named the National Conference. He developed close relationship with Indian National Congress, particularly with its leading light, Jawahar Lal Nehru. As the supremo of National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah denounced the sectarian politics of Jinnah and wowed to follow secular policies. Many Kashmiri Pandits felt relieved that their future could now be safe in secular Kashmir. To add to their new-found optimism, Pandit Nehru and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan attended the Annual session of the National Conference in Sopore held between August 2-5, 1945. Here, Nehru made an appeal to the audience to rally around Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference, which was an answer to their ills. He particularly asked Kashmiri Pandits to ‘leave Kashmir if they did not join the National Conference. If Pandits could not join it, no safeguards would protect them.’ Following Nehru’s advice, Pandits, including many of their leading lights, joined the NC in large numbers. They had hoped that the party would become a symbol of secularism and nationalism in newly independent India. But that was not to be. The State’s accession to India did little to improve the fortunes of about a million Kashmiri Pandits living in Kashmir at that time. In fact, the old method of employing statistical assault on Kashmiri Pandits continued; the figures quoted by the state administration about the number of Kashmiri Pandits left in the valley after the 1947- Pakistani invasion of Kashmir, was between 80,000 and 120,000. This was way below the actual number quoted above. At the time of this invasion, some families had left the valley, but most had returned after the Pakistanis were pushed out and normalcy was restored. The whole aim of under-representing the Kashmiri Pandit population was to deny them their due share in the state legislature and in the government jobs. This denial extended to their being marginalized politically too, by altering the electoral boundaries of some Pandit dominated areas in Srinagar, Anantnag and other places. This was done to ensure that they would not be able to elect a candidate of their choice from those constituencies, where they lived in substantial numbers. This way the administration ensured that one (never more than one) Kashmiri Pandit got elected to the state legislature, that too only with the support of Muslim votes. |
 |
| The census figures of 1981 put the Muslim population in the valley at 95 per cent, up from 83 per cent in 1941; whereas the corresponding Kashmiri Pandits population, placed at 124,000, was down to 5 per cent from 15 per cent, during the same period. The failure of the 1967-Parmeshwari Handoo agitation further resulted in Pandits feeling insecure. In a sense, it confirmed the second-class status of Kashmiri Pandits in the new dispensation. It is estimated that during the four decades between 1948 and 1988 about 200,000 Kashmiri Hindus migrated to other parts of the country. The false figures quoted by the government stood exposed in 1989–90, when the number of Kashmiri Pandits who fled the valley was placed at over 450,000. Nearly 300,000 of them were housed in refugee camps in Jammu, Delhi and elsewhere; 100,000 found place with relatives in various places in India and abroad; around 50,000 were still left in the valley before the end of 1990. Thereafter, the 1991 census put the Pandits at 0.1 per cent of the population, which would translate to barely 3,000 people. During all this time the Kashmiri Pandits were getting marginalized economically too. One of the first acts of Sheikh Abdullah after coming to power was to enact the ‘Jammu and Kashmir Land Estates Abolition Act’. Though its ostensible purpose was to improve the lot of landless tillers, the exercise was primarily undertaken to take away the lands belonging to Kashmiri Pandits and hand these over to Muslims. Hindus, especially in rural areas, whose only source of sustenance was their land, were turned into beggars overnight, once their lands were taken away from them without being paid any compensation, as promised. To complete their marginalization, the next set of legislation brought in by Syed Mir Qasim in the form of ‘Reformatory Law of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1971,’ further sealed their economic fate. The discrimination was extended to many other areas, chief among these being the discrimination Kashmiri Pandits suffered in government jobs and admission to professional colleges. An indication of the coming events was available from what happened in 1986, when the state Chief Minister, Ghulam Mohammad Shah, aka, Gul Shah, decided to construct a mosque named Shah Masjid, inside the new civil secretariat, within premises of an ancient temple in Jammu. People of Jammu resented this communally driven move and came out on the streets in protest. Gul Shah retaliated; but only after reaching the Valley. In February 1986, he instigated the Muslims by raising the slogan of Islam Khatre Mein Hey (Islam is in danger). This provocative slogan, coming from the Chief Minister himself, was enough to instigate the Muslims, who turned their anger against the hapless Kashmiri Pandits. The worst hit areas were mainly in South Kashmir and also in Sopore, namely Vanpoh, Lukbhavan, Anantnag, Salar and Fatehpur, etc. The rampaging Muslim mobs plundered and destroyed 300 Pandit houses and two temples, besides looting many shops, setting their business establishments on fire, and desecrating many religious sites. However, to hide the reality of what had happened, the state government used a massive cover-up. Though President’s rule was imposed in the state after the Congress Party withdrew support from the state government, yet no action, whatsoever, was taken against those responsible for destruction of life and property of Kashmiri Pandits. The central and State governments’ tepid response to what the hapless Pandits suffered further emboldened the radical Islamists in Kashmir. It will not be wrong to say that Central Government’s weak response encouraged the radical Islamists to embark on an outright armed uprising inspired by the concept of Jihad, three years later. However, the complacent Pandits of Kashmir missed this marker too and failed to interpret its significance as a stern warning to their very survival in Kashmir. The result was our ethnic cleansing and our exodus. |
 |
 *Paper presented at “Sh. Amarnath Vaishnavi Memorial Lecture.” August 23, 2024 at Writers Club JammuBy Col Tej K Tikoo, Ph.D
|
|
|