GL Raina
“Mun tu shudam, tu man shudi,
Mun tan shudam, tu jaan shudi,
Taakas na guyad ba’ad azeen,
Mun deegaram, tu deegari.”
(“I have become you, and you me,
I am the body, you soul;
So that no one can say hereafter,
That you are someone else, and I someone else.”)
These immortal lines by Amir Khusro, evoking complete union of soul and body, were recited by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah at Lal Chowk in Srinagar while addressing Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948. Symbolically, it suggested absolute harmony between Kashmir and India. But history soon revealed this poetic gesture as political convenience instead of reflecting genuine unity of purpose. It masked a deeper divergence of intentions. It was not a declaration of unity-it was a political performance, calculated to evoke trust at a crucial juncture in Jammu and Kashmir’s history.
Nehru’s Overreach and the Rise of Sheikh Abdullah
Contrary to the sanitized mainstream narratives, Nehru went well beyond constitutional propriety to placate Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah. From appointing him Emergency Administrator in 1947 to later installing him as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Nehru ignored the legitimate ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The Maharaja, whose family had ruled the state for nearly two centuries, was eventually exiled in what many consider an undignified and politically motivated decision.
Behind the emotional optics lay a series of hard political decisions-many of which would later be labelled Nehruvian blunders. The facts show that Nehru bent constitutional conventions to accommodate Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah in ways that permanently altered the political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir.
The rules of India’s Constituent Assembly were tweaked to allow Sheikh Abdullah to nominate four members from J&K, bypassing any electoral accountability. Even the 1951 elections to the J&K Constituent Assembly, which should have been a model of democracy, became a farce-every seat was won unopposed by the National Conference.
But even this political largesse and concessions did not satisfy Sheikh Abdullah and failed to win his enduring loyalty to the Indian Union. Instead, he began cultivating the idea of an independent “Sultanate,” aligning with foreign powers and selectively invoking Article 370 not for public welfare but for dynastic consolidation. His politics, as well as that of his successors, remained narrowly self-serving-leveraging identity, religion, and emotion to maintain power. The people-both Hindus and Muslims-became pawns in a dynastic struggle for dominance.
His politics were not rooted in the democratic will of Kashmiris but in dynastic ambitions. His successors maintained this pattern-alternating between populism and ethno-centric politics while monopolizing state resources and power structures.
The poetic proclamation “Mun tu shudam…” thus remained a jumla-a rhetorical flourish devoid of corresponding political honesty.
Understanding “Dilli Se Doori” and “Dil Se Doori”
The much-invoked distance between Delhi and Kashmir-geographical and emotional-cannot be bridged by rhetoric alone. The PM had said in 2021 that “he wants to remove Dilli ki Doori (the distance from Delhi) as well as Dil Ki Doori (the distance from the heart)” . That statement is being used often to question New Delhi’s Policies ignoring the fact that it has to be two-way responsibility.
Hollow statements from people in high offices- holding the posts at present or in the past, or the divisive framing of “your heroes vs my heroes,” only deepen the chasm. True heroes are never defined by region, sect, or ideology. They act on universal principles and their contributions should unite, not divide. True heroes transcend sectarian labels. They sacrifice for shared ideals, not for family legacies.
Unfortunately, the dominant political discourse in Kashmir has often exalted divisive or exclusivist figures while ignoring those who stood for national unity. It often promoted a sectarian version of history and identity. Leaders have glorified rebellion and vilified integration. In doing so, they’ve side-lined genuine nationalist voices like Mohammad Maqbool Sherwani, who resisted Pakistani raiders in 1947 and paid with his life. His legacy has been neglected, while others with divisive agendas have been canonised as “martyrs.”
Those who stood for integration with India were persecuted, while separatist sympathisers found platforms and patronage. The Indian nationalist constituency in Kashmir-comprising both Muslims and Hindus-has historically faced marginalization. While separatist narratives were often accommodated, if not encouraged, those advocating national integration were side-lined or punished. It is this policy contradiction that led Nehru, despite his personal bond with Sheikh, to ultimately have him dismissed and arrested in 1953.
That pattern of political contradiction persists. Even today, regional parties like the National Conference struggle to reconcile their populist posturing with constitutional obligations. Their loyalty often seems transactional-invoked in Delhi, but diluted in Srinagar. Even today, the leadership of parties like the National Conference and other Kashmir centric regional parties struggle to reconcile constitutional responsibilities with their personal ideological leanings-often defaulting to grievance politics that undermines national unity.
The Pitfalls of Selective Historical Memory
A striking example of intellectual dishonesty in Kashmir’s political narrative is the comparison of the 13 July 1931 incident with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919. Such analogies not only distort facts but also diminish the gravity of genuine historical atrocities.
Jallianwala Bagh was a cold-blooded massacre of unarmed civilians peacefully protesting colonial tyranny. General Dyer, without provocation, sealed off the exits and opened fire on the trapped crowd, killing hundreds. It was an act of imperial brutality that shocked the world.
In contrast, 13 July 1931 began as a protest during the trial of a political agitator but quickly turned violent. As detailed by G.S. Raghavan in The Warning from Kashmir, the crowd stormed the jail, attacked officials, and set buildings on fire. The police fired after repeated efforts to pacify the mob failed. Looting and chaos ensued across parts of Srinagar. While this event certainly marks a turning point in Kashmir’s political awakening, equating it with a massacre like Jallianwala Bagh is intellectually dishonest and historically untenable. Victim’s side of the story about 1931 is largely ignored.
Towards a New Political Ethos
The path to genuine integration lies not in symbolic declarations or selective memory but in identifying shared principles-justice, pluralism, and accountability-and building a collective vision rooted in constitutionalism, not convenience.
Kashmir’s emotional and political distance from Delhi cannot be bridged by appeasement, or by coercion. It requires moral clarity, historical honesty, and inclusive governance. The aspirations of ordinary Kashmiris-whether Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh-are not incompatible with the Indian constitutional framework. What is lacking is the political will and ethical leadership to honestly represent them.
As India looks ahead, it must support voices that speak the language of unity without erasing diversity, that champion constitutional values without bending them for expediency. That is how “Dilli ki doori” and “dil ki doori” will truly be overcome-not through poetry or politics alone, but through principled statecraft.
( The author is a former Member of Legislative Council of Jammu Kashmir)
Follow our WhatsApp channel