Bakhshi’s forty lakh with whom now?

Ahmed Ali Fayaz

Kashmiris too have been a people of emotions and sentiments. But, in the art of survival they have not lagged behind. This land of contrasts and complexities has been deceptive to even the world’s most enlightened social scientists who have often erred in their assessment of the Kashmiri nation. As Kashmir’s men and matters have been grossly beyond their comprehension, New Delhi’s "Kashmir experts" have been leading the Indian nation to what one amongst them — Tavleen Singh— calls ‘tragedy of errors’. Most of them do still believe that Shaheed Gunj is the vernacular name of the Valley’s "martyrs graveyard". Even an ‘Adviser’ to Governor was once confused that Shalteng was a relative to then Public Service Commission member Mohammad Yusuf Teng!

Those who are conversant with the Indian system of crisis management and New Delhi’s high profile Kashmir strategists must not be a bit confused as to why the contemporary Government’s policies, from surrender to ceasefire, had failed one after another. I was taken aback when, last fortnight, one of my friends in the middle rungs of Jammu & Kashmir Police revealed a shocking anecdote.

He and his counterparts in other Indian states were supposed to brief the Prime Minister’s Office about terrorism-related developments in their respective regions. Jammu & Kashmir had been clubbed with the group of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. After all, the Mumbai Dadas and bandits of the Chambal too have been operating with guns! But the real bewilderment came when the host Joint Secretary asked the J&K official: "Why do you people sleep and allow this much of infiltrators to get in? Why don’t you seal that gate?" She was under the impression that there was a Waga-type gate at the Uri border and all the infiltrators from Pakistan had been sneaking into the Valley through it by night.

Unlike Afghans, Kashmiris are not a race of resistance. They have conveniently switched over from Budhism to Hinduism and later to Islam but they have always managed to maintain their own culture and identity. The question of survival in the worst of times has been paramount to them. When the Mughals annexed Kashmir and removed the sovereignty’s last independent monarch, Yusuf Shah Chak, they congratulated the natives: "You have achieved freedom". At the Iddgah grounds, Kashmiris chanted "Zaroor". Mughals ruled the greater Kashmir for 167 years, the tyrant Afghans for 66 years, Sikhs for 27 years and the Dogras for 101 years. Kashmiris have been the cannon fodder for Indian and Pakistan during the last 54 years. But, all through, they have been consummate in the art of physical survival.

The last 54 years too have been a criss-cross of subtleties and contrasts. In 1931-47, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah emerged as a charismatic personality and undisputed king of the Kashmiris’ hearts. People even supported him in his campaign against the Pakistani tribal invasion in 1947 but left him in lurch in the plebiscite era of 1953-75. In February 1975, when Sheikh Abdullah signed Indira-Abdullah accord, Kashmiris observed a total shutdown in protest, on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s call. Two days after, they converged on streets and received the Sheikh to a historic welcome. In the free and fair elections of 1977, Sheikh Abdullah defeated all of his rivals— including Jamaat-e-Islami— with a thumping majority. When he breathed his last in 1982, one million Kashmiris mourned his death in the funeral, historic in the world. Just eight years after, the tomb of the "Lion of Kashmir" had to be guarded by armed Police.

Kashmiris denigrated Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad as the ‘rogue son the midwife’ when he toppled the Sheikh in 1953. But, overnight the villain turned into the hero. Within days, he attained the image of a merciful king who would pay liberal land compensation to the ‘poor’ Muslims and give them Government jobs free. When, as per an anecdote, Prime Minister Nehru asked the Bakhshi how many people were his supporters, he quipped: "40 Lakh". How many then with the Sheikh? "Sir, 40 Lakh". As a perplexed Nehru reminded him that Kashmir’s total population was just forty Lakh, Bakhshi asserted that they were a nation of vacillating loyalties. When the same king contested elections and ultimately died in oblivion, there was none by his side.

The same people, who, in 1947, chanted "Hamla aawar khabardaar ham Kashmiri hein tayyar" and sold off Pakistan’s Mujahids for a song to India in 1965 war, did burst firecrackers whenever Pakistan defeated India in cricket and finally sweared by that country, in 1990. Again, one million people called on the UN office at Sonwar and asked for Azadi and Pakistan. Jagmohan, who was a veritable hero in 1985, was abused as a killer and usurper.

Earlier too, the comedy of contrasts was manifest abundantly. In 1982, thousands in Srinagar hailed Sheikh’s pre-death decision of installing son Farooq Abdullah as President of National Conference and the heir apparent. As they chanted "Asi chhu babas wada kormut, boi banawon padshah" [this is our promise to the father (Sheikh Abdullah) that we would coronate the brother (Farooq) as the king] Dr Abdullah swept the polls. Two years later, Jagmohan was their hero and five years later both, Farooq as well as Jagmohan, were "bloody traitor and usurper".

When Gen Zia-ul-Haq executed Bhutto in 1979, people in Kashmir died in protest and outraged the pro-Pakistan commune of Jamaat-e-Islami. They called Bhutoo a martyr and did spit on Zia as a Jallad (killer). After a decade, when Zia died in aircrash, Kashmiris died again in Police firing, eulogised him as Messiah of the Muslim Millat, observed total shutdown in his remembrance and embraced his Operation Topac.

And, once upon a time in 1977, they accorded red-carpet welcome to the Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai at Mirwaiz Manzil. Ironically, followers of today’s prominent Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Omar Farooq sang songs in Morarji’s honour and described him as "Pakistanuk Gazi" (The brave man of Pakistan). Those were the days when another Hurriyat leader Abdul Gani Lone was a candidate of Morarji’s Janata Party, Syed Ali Shah Geelani was a Jamaat contestant in Assembly elections and neither of them would ever refer to "India’s broken promises with Kashmiris".

The situation has not altered completely. In recent times, we have seen people yelling against Indian and Farooq Abdullah outside the polling booths and voting for NC inside. Giving donations and good prayers to militants and a tip off to security forces has also been witnessed simultaneously. Ask ten people collectively on the street what they would want and the reply is Azadi. Ask them individually in a room and the reply is anything from Azadi to Government jobs, to free loans, to good road, to electricity, to clean water, to cheap rice... Most of those who are currently in pro-Taliban demonstrations in Srinagar have neither long beards, nor Burqa-clad women at home and, perhaps, nor even the basic conception about the so-called Jehadi form of Islam.

(The author is Srinagar Bureau Chief of Daily Excelsior)

Reconstructing Our Central Asian Policy

By K.N. Pandita

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of independent states of Central Asia, I have been emphasising the need for India to reconstruct her Central Asian policy. As a matter of fact, we have no Central Asian ‘policy’ although we have the Central Asian desk in the Ministry of External Affairs.

Under communist dispensation, Soviet Union did not encourage the federating republics to conduct their foreign affairs independently. Since India was very friendly with the Soviet Union, she did not feel the necessity to establish direct liaison with the Central Asian republics. This was a big mistake.

We failed to realise all these years the strategic importance of these Central Asian republics, their demographic composition, their strong secular traditions, their rich indigenous culture and their enormous hydrocarbon reserves. What is more, we ignored the historical bonds between India and the Central Asia permeating the annals of history. For example, in the case of Tajikistan, once called the underbelly of Turkestan, we remained blissfully ignorant of her importance and relevance to us. I am reminded of a particular instance that reflects the mindset of the mandarins at the foreign office. I happened to travel to Moscow after spending a fortnight at Dushanbe. Late T.N. Kaul was our Ambassador in Moscow. In my informal chat with him on our relations with Central Asia, I hinted at Tajikistan’s importance to us in future. He was quick to refute and asserted, "Why Tajikistan, why not Beylorusia or Ukraine?" Surely, he reflected the thinking in the South Block. Today we are awaking to the strategic importance of this tiny but most crucial state of Central Asia on which not only Russia but now the United States and Great Britain are also concentrating.

In the first place, we need an upgraded policy on Afghanistan, the land integral to the Central Asian region. After the deposition of Najibullah government in 1993 and the tragic end of that great son of the soil, we clumsily withdrew to our shell and let the field open for our adversaries to trample it under their iron heels. Why did we accept an ignominious retreat from Central Asia? Was there lack of perception?

In the case of Afghanistan, we must recall our long friendship and mutual respect with the Afghans especially the Pakhtoons. Afghanistan had been our sincere and sympathetic friend during India’s freedom struggle The Frontier Gandhi never reconciled either to the Durand Line or to the partition of India. He was a bastion of secularism and democracy. Today Afghans are passing through a tragic and treacherous period of their history. It is time that we realise our responsibility moral as well as historical. India should woo the Afghans whether living in Afghanistan or as refugees in different parts of the world including Pakistan. We never tried to reach the Afghan Diasporas.

India has to realise that the region of immense importance in near future is Central Asia. WE need to appreciate the stupendous efforts made by the Central Asian regimes to protect and preserve their ancient civilisation and their secular character. Central Asia is the one outstanding Muslim dominated region that is standing squarely against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. This is the biggest ideological commonality that wields Central Asia into the community of democrats, secularists and pluralists throughout the free world. As such our fraternising with the Central Asians is the natural and spontaneous. Our policy towards Central Asia should be essentially oriented along economic and technological co-operation. Our cultural ties should not hold us back within the parameters of mediaeval or ancient times. The present and the future are more important. India must explore the avenues for broad-based co-operation on just and equitable terms that would ultimately contribute towards the prosperity of entire Central Asia and raising of the standard of living of her people. In particular, India can open the floodgates of her academic and professional institutions where thousands of aspiring Central Asians would receive education and training. Indian investors should chalk out special programmes of investment in more productive endeavours in Central Asia. Although we do not have direct overland link with Central Asia, but this can be and should be worked out on the basis of the international guidelines about landlocked countries. We should have regular air service to and from Central Asian capitals.

India must also realise the importance of vast Central Asian hydrocarbon reserves, which some western countries are trying to tap. Pakistan is frantically trying to find accessibility to the Turkmen gasfields at Daulatabad. In fact one of the factors of her now collapsed Afghan policy was to prop up Taliban to ensure the Daulatabad gas pipeline across Afghanistan to Karachi. Liberalising of trade relations with Central Asia should be the corner stone of our Central Asian policy. Joint military and surveillance exercises, exchange of military delegations, sharing expertise in containing fundamentalist outrages, assistance in various economic enterprises like banking, taxation, customs etc. are the fields in which India can make strong contribution. India has to create space for herself in Central Asia through a policy of fraternal co-operation and not through hegemonic obsession. Central Asia has to be on our side.

India must remember that soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and declaration of independence by the CA states, some of the neighbouring countries thought that a vacuum had appeared and they tried to fill it by entering Central Asia with full force. Each country used its peculiar methodology including the export of Islamic fundamentalism. But soon they realised that they had entered through a wrong door. Iran, for example, always desirous of finding strategic depth, began wooing Tajikistan in a very clumsy manner. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan tried to play the religious card while Turkey tried to make use of Pan-Turkic card. Amusingly all these gimmicks failed. A Tajik friend told me in diabolic words, " Iran extended her stifling arm but before it could reach our throats, we chopped it off." Central Asians as good accepted distribution of hundreds of thousands of the copies of the holy Quran and funding for construction of mosques for the men of faith but they rejected fundamentalist theory of inducting religion into the state politics. India needs to do much homework on Central Asian scenario. Her policy for Central Asia must be constructed with a futuristic vision.