Tareekh Siyasat Kashmir
The Kashmir is and always has been more than a pretty valley. It has been a place where empires collided, leaders reigned then went out of power and the common man suffered in the centre of power play. History of Tareekh Siyasat Kashmir reveals that it is inseparable or interconnected between politics and history in the region. It also uncovers some of the lessons that are applicable up to this day.
One thing that is evident in the book is that Kashmir has never been able to rule itself in most cases. Its fate has been determined by outsiders, by ancient Hindu monarchs, by Muslim sultans, by Mughals, by Afghans and Sikhs as well as Dogras and modern states. Every change of rulers meant new systems yet sometimes the local population was not consulted. Almost a century later this trend left behind the legacy of dependence and frustration, which linger till date in the valley.
Introducing of Islam altered the social and cultural life in Kashmir. Such transition was not done by conquering the land as is the case in many parts of the world, but the Sufis applied influence.
Saints such as Bulbul Shah and Shah Hamadan influenced individuals with religiousness, justice and equality. This non-violent expansion resulted in a culture of a common Kashmiri identity of art, music and religion. However, political stability was short lived. Shahmiri and Chak dynasties ended, and foreign powers started ruling the land again.
During the Mughals Kashmir joined an empire. They constructed gardens, mosques and towns, yet their high tax harmed peasants. After them there were the Afghans, who would be remembered for cruelty and exploitation. Then the Sikhs reigned, putting some limitations on the Muslims and isolating the majority. These phases of external domination reveal the manner, in which Kashmir was never taken as a homeland but as a prize. Their people were not listened to, their labour was used, and religion was in most cases stifled.
The most decisive happened in 1846 when treaty of Amritsar was signed. British sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh who was the owner of Dogra. This was not so much a political settlement but a business deal.
An entire population was sold like to money. The Dogras replaced benevolent imposition of taxation and labour conscription with hard taxation and labour conscription. Education was not widespread Muslims were excluded by opportunities. This injustice of this time would be the seeds germinated in the 20th century.
When the modern political movements started, they were based on these centuries of ignorance. In 1931, uprising was not a spontaneous outcry. It was a logical reaction of people who were exploited during generations. People such as Sheikh Abdullah articulated their frustration. The Muslim Conference and consequently the National Conference aroused people through its call upon people to seek reform and justice. These were not just political movements, rather calls to dignity.
The Partition of 1947 made the situation with Kashmir an issue on the world map. The indecisiveness of the Maharaja, the tribal invasion and the hastily made accession to India transformed its fortunes irreversibly.
Kashmir was lost in war and its territory divided between two new nations. The consequence of that, to the people, was still less privilege of unfolding their own destiny. Their territory was used as a bargaining chip in some greater geopolitical game.
Hope and disappointment came in the years following 1947. Sheikh Abdullah gained power, and he instituted land reforms and gave the promise of a new era. The arrest of 1953 put to rest many hopes. Since that time Kashmir lost its autonomy with time. Police interference with political rituals, overthrowing of established regimes and election ratification distanced the politicians and the citizens. Once more the regular Kashmiris had their voice silenced.
By late 1980s, frustration has caused outbursts in violence. Insurgency, militancy and counter insurgency destroyed the valley. The exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, militarization and vicious cycles of bloodshed marred society. The generations instead of having peace were brought up with fear. The battle devoured human beings and killed trust. The events have been very recent, even now.
What is striking in this extensive history is the refusal of agency recurrently. Kashmiris had seldom chosen their course of action External rulers, colonial masters and modern states have presupposed to cater to their interest, yet the populace have largely remained at the periphery. This repetitive rejection is the reason of this strong feeling of alienation in the valley. It also describes why the conflict is also emotional.
Tareekh Siyasat Kashmir is a critical lesson but a basic one, because it fundamentally means that you cannot run away. Peace cannot be brought by other treaties. No military solutions can come to the rescue. It cannot come with merely spoken promises. Real peace involves hearing the voices of people of Kashmir and getting their self-back.
Unless there is their cooperation and input, no solution can be complete. Meanwhile, there are also signs of resilience to the Kashmir story as well. The culture of the Kashmir survived despite oppression. Its poetry, Sufi traditions and art remain inspirational. This cultural potency is a reminder of the fact that identity cannot be washed away by force. It also brings hope of the future along the way too Dwelling on common culture, dialogue, and justice it can be nonetheless envisaged that Kashmir remains peaceful.
History is more than about the past. It is also the reflection of the present. Events that have taken place in Kashmir teach us to beware of ignoring the voices of the people as the disturbance there is because people were not listened to. It also informs that fairness-based unity is stronger compared to fear-based unity. Perhaps the lessons learned can be applied by the leaders today and the future of the valley does not end up the way the past was tragic.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are exclusively those of the author and do not reflect the official stance, policies, or perspectives of the Platform.
