Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

Kashmiriyat: The Victim of Political Construction

Mr. Abdul Maajid Dar, PhD Research Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, IGNOU, New Delhi

Abstract

The region of Kashmir is known for a unique cultural identity which is called kashmiriyat. It as a historically evolved institution is committed to the principles of justice, accommodation, toleration and communal harmony. It is an indigenous identity of Kashmiri people that has evolved within a unique context of Kashmir. As an indigenous philosophy, it represents an alternative epistemology to the totalizing discourses and ideologies. However, its essence and influence have not remained constant in all historical epochs of Kashmir. By the nineteenth- century, it has undergone a plethora of events which have irreparably damaged its edifice in several ways, making it the victim of fabrication. Its erosion and distortion tend to have serious repercussions for the Kashmir valley and for entire region of South Asia. This paper conceptualises the category of kashmiriyat, and examines its erosion and fabrication during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of Kashmir. The paper focuses on two forces responsible for the erosion of kashmiriyat: Dogra regime, and external penetration, whether religious or political.

Keywords: Kashmiriyat, communal harmony, politicization, identity, erosion, Punjab politics, Dogra regime, Kashmir

Introduction

“Tradition of all the dead generations”, wrote Karl Marx, “weighs like a nightmare on the brain of living” (as cited in Johnson, 2003, p. 113). Any living organism cannot disown such historical inevitability, and the people of Kashmir cannot be an exception thereof. Kashmir valley has been portrayed, both by foreign travellers and local residents, as paradise on earth, and has been praised as an abode of saints. The portrayal of Kashmir as a repository of saints over a period of time is itself an indication of the cultural hybridisation. This uniqueness is the product of the all-embracing philosophy of love which manifests itself in the prevalence of communal harmony, toleration, justices and accommodation. But the term under which this philosophy is bannered, kashmiriyat, suffered irreparable damage at the turn of nineteenth-century as the Muslim and non-Muslim communities of Kashmir got involved in unprecedented tensions and conflicts, and the traditional value of communal harmony was

Volume IX, Issue VIII, AUGUST/2020 Page No : 509 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

widely violated by both communities. Since then, kashmiriyat has become a matter of debate dominated by following questions: is it about justifying the rule of majortarianism?, is it rooted in the cultural ethos of the valley or just a myth?, does it represent the project of ethno-nationalism?, is it about establishing a homogeneous society through assimilating minority cultures into the dominant culture?, does it constitute a part of particular totalising and unitary project?, and does it have the capacity to revive itself and contribute in bringing peace in Kashmir valley?

Defining Kashmiriyat

Although the term kashmiriyat was invented by mainstream Kashmiri and Indian leaders during the freedom struggle in the region against the tyrannous rule of Dogra regime (Rai, 2004; Zutshi, 2003), its essence has been present in Kashmir since a long period of time. As Rattan Lal Hangloo (2015) has maintained that:

Kashmiriyat does not only mean simply a harmonious relationship cutting across religious and sectarian divisions or pluralistic tradition, but it is a far wider concept that has grown over centuries of historical processes that the region of Kashmir has embraced, both in peace and in turmoil. Kashmiriyat is not a mere concept but an institution with societal, political, economic, and cultural currents and undercurrents. (p. 43) From the indigenous Kashmiri point of view, the essence lying behind the kashmiriyat is recognition and celebration of religious pluralism, cultural differences, toleration, accommodation, choice and freedom. It argues for a united Kashmiri nationalism to be realised not by assimilating minority cultures into the dominant culture, but by what Charles Taylor calls politics of recognition, representing that “everyone should be recognised for his or her unique identity” (1994, p. 38). This notion of kashmiriyat was developed in the fourteenth-century by Lal Ded, a mystic poet, and her disciple Shaikh Nur-ud-Din, commonly known as Nund Rishi, a Muslim saint (Bazaz, 1954). Both of them, through the medium of poetry, rebelled against the existing apparatus and voiced for an alternative system in Kashmir which in the nineteenth-century was identified as kashmiriyat. They portrayed a unique picture of Kashmiri culture, a culture which recognises communal harmony, humanism, toleration and glorious cultural gains of Buddhism, Shaivism and Islam (Bazaz, 1954; Kaul, 2011). They preached oneness of humankind and oneness of God for all. As Lal Ded in one of her poems has said:

Volume IX, Issue VIII, AUGUST/2020 Page No : 510 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

Shiva is omnipresent Don’t differentiate between Hindus and Muslims If you are wise, you will recognize your true self That is your real acquaintance with the lord (as cited in Kak, 2008, p. 183) They were pioneers of Hindu-Muslim unity, and through their massage of love of humankind, they strived to resolve the historical tension between Hindus and Muslims (Giyas ud-Din, 2007). Their teachings, while employing the language of common Kashmiris rather than of a particular religion or of elites, made an everlasting impact on the minds of common masses of Kashmir (Sikand, 2008). They laid the ground for pluralist-tolerant culture in Kashmir and their philosophies, which represent what John Rawls calls overlapping consensus, a common ground within heterogeneous religions or communities, is widely acknowledged and respected by both Hindu and Muslim communities of Kashmir (Bazaz, 1954; Hangloo, 2015; Kaul, 2011; Kak, 2008). Their secular-humanist philosophies were exemplified by Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin, commonly known as Bud Shah (great king), who as ruler of Kashmir from 1420 to 1470 institutionalised the secular-humanist values. As Prem Nath Bazaz has insisted that “he [Zain-ul-Abidib] was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim but essentially a Kashmiri who built a progressive and a secular state on the foundations of the composite Kashmir culture which had been evolved through thousands of years till his own day” (1954, p. 61). Erosion of Kashmiriyat At the turn of nineteenth-century, Kashmir witnessed social, economic, political and cultural changes. It is the context of these changes that kashmiriyat began to fade away. Although erosion of kashmiriyat started from post-Zain-ul-Abidin period, it captured heights under the Dogra rule established through the Treaty of Amritsar signed by Dogra Raja of Jammu Gulab Singh and British government on 16 March 1846. Maharaja Gulab Singh and his successors ruled over Kashmir for one century through the politics of sectarianism, despotism, militarism and corruption (Bazaz, 1954; Rai, 2004). To buttress the legitimacy of its rule, the Dogra regime provided preference to fellow Hindus in state services, educational institutions and economic spheres at the cost of majority based Muslim subjects, and glorified and patronised Hinduism (Bazaz, 1954; Rai, 2004; Snedden, 2017). It left no stone unturned in breaking the Kashmiri traditional values of Hindu-Muslim unity and communal harmony in the region. Following the British policy of divide and rule, the Dogra government established separate educational institutions and hospitals for the Hindus and Muslims of Kashmir, encouraged the separate electoral system and politicised the festivals of one community

Volume IX, Issue VIII, AUGUST/2020 Page No : 511 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

against another (“who is responsible for schismaticalnes?”, 1936). Hindus and Muslims were recognised as two separate communities and were granted separate political identities (Rai, 2004; Zutshi, 2003). As T. N. Madan (2008) has pointed out that “their [Muslims and Hindus] identities were redefined in exclusive instead of inclusive terms” (p. 30). This divisive politics of Dogra regime severely damaged the traditional pluralist and tolerant character of Kashmir. It damaged the essence of kashmiriyat to such extent that Muslims and Hindus of Kashmir began to consider each other as enemies. As Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah maintained that: The mentality of this country has worsened to such extent that Hindus and Muslims do not like each other. Hindu thinks that his interests are incompatible with the interests of Muslims, and a Muslim also, while pursuing same thinking, thinks that his benefit lies in what causes loss to Hindus. (as cited in Bazaz, 1936b, p. 8) The second factor which contributed in eroding kashmiriyat is the intervention of Punjabi organisations in the internal politics of Kashmir. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Punjab based Muslim and Hindu organisations, such as All India Kashmir Committee, Anjuman-i-Himayat-Islam, Anjuman-i-Kashmiri Musalman, All India Muslim League, Majilis Ahrar-i-Islam-i-Hind, Arya Samaj and Sanatan Dharma Sabha, made the Kashmir an ideological battleground for spreading and legitimising their respective ideological projects (Bazaz, 1954; Rai, 2004; Zutshi, 2003). These Punjabi Muslim and Hindu organisations extended their support to their respective Kashmiri brethren in such a way that they made them feel that they were two separate communities which could never live together (Bazaz, 1936a). The Kashmiri leaders of both communities fell in this communal trap and they began to run their politics on the lines of Punjab politics. As Prem Nath Bazaz, a veteran freedom fighter of Kashmir and an ardent supporter of kashmiriyat, in a letter to Mahatma Gandhi dated 8 May 1934 wrote: Some [Kashmiri Muslim leaders] are anxious to be tools in the hands of pan-Islamic leaders of the Punjab like Sir Mohammed Iqbal and others. They see the dreams of wiping out Hindus from Kashmir and establishing a Mohammedan confederacy in Northern India; and others who were always anxious to meddle in the political affairs of Kashmir have now found an opportunity of fulfilling their long cherished schemes of pan-Islamism Kashmiri Muslim and Hindu leaders’ approach of running the local politics on the lines of Punjab politics irreparably damaged the edifice of kashmiriyat. It generated trust deficit between the two communities and created inter-community conflicts and rivalry over the issues of share in state services and educational institutions, nature of electoral system (joint

Volume IX, Issue VIII, AUGUST/2020 Page No : 512 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

or separate), ownership of religious places and so on (Bazaz, 1936a, Zutshi, 2003). It also encouraged the division of Muslim community revolving around the meaning of Islam in Kashmir associated with economic and political power. The intervention of Punjabi Muslim rival organisations of Ahmadiyyas and Ahrars, for instance, in Kashmir politics encouraged the division of Muslim leadership into two opposite groups- Sher (lion) faction which was led by Sheikh Abdullah was the supporter of Ahmadiyyas, and Bakra (goat) faction which was led by Mirwaiz (head preacher) of Jama Masjid Mohamad Yousuf Shah supported the ideology of Ahrars (Rai, 2004; Zutshi, 2003). The inter-community and intra-community tensions and conflicts provided an opportunity to autocratic Dogra regime to make intrusion into the cultural life of Kashmiris and destabilise the traditional communal harmony which it effectively capitalised on. The construction, associated with power, of Kashmiri people’s identities by Dogra regime and external actors in nineteenth and twentieth centuries made the indigenous identity of Kashmir region, kashmiriyat, a victim of fabrication, leading to murder of what it essentially is and acceptance of what it is not. The distorted version of kashmiriyat represents that kashmiriyat is a part of universal project of Islam, it aims at establishment of homogeneous identity and it reflects the ideology of either majority or minority community. The essence of kashmiriyat consists of none of them. It represents neither universal project of Islam nor Hinduism, but what can be called the lived religion, the religion being a product of Kashmiri local context not only differs from but sometimes contradicts with the universal project of Islam and Hinduism. It does not represent the ideology of win and loss as it is based on the celebration and recognition of multiple identities. Conclusion Historically, Kashmiriyat represents the lived experience of Kashmiris. However, such experience has not remained constant in all historical epochs. In each epoch, Kashmiri identity has been subjected to a number of interpretations which seems good as such action can contribute to bringing to light new dimensions of Kashmiri identity. However, such interpretations are backed by power equation to such extent that instead of arriving at the real essence of kashmiriyat, they have led to the creation of a distorted category of kashmiriyat with competitive meanings. Each meaning aims at to justify itself and delegitimise the power of others causing the death of substance of kashmiriyat. Kashmiriyat, as what it essentially is, has the capacity to rectify trust deficit between Muslim and non-Muslims communities of Kashmir and contain the rivalry between India and Pakistan in the Kashmir valley.

Volume IX, Issue VIII, AUGUST/2020 Page No : 513 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

References

Bazaz, P. N. (1934, May 8). [Letter to Mahatma Gandhi]. Copy in possession of Bushan Bazaz.

Bazaz, P. N. (1936a, February 1). How did the communal mentality become widespread? Hamdard, p. 8. Srinagar State Archives.

Bazaz, P. N. (1936b, July 25). Doubts about Youth League. Hamdard, pp. 8-9. Srinagar State Archives.

Bazaz, P. N. (1954). The history of the struggle for freedom in Kashmir, cultural and political, from the earliest times to the present day. New Delhi: Kashmir Publishing Company.

Giyas ud-Din, P. (2007). Kashmir: Islam, ideology, and society. Srinagar: Jay Kay Books.

Hangloo, R. L. (2015). Kashmiriyat: The voice of the past misconstrued. In N. A. Khan (Ed.), The parchment of Kashmir: History, society, and polity (pp. 37-68). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, W. (2003). On agency. Journal of Social History, 37(1), 113-124. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3790316

Kaul, A. (2011). Kashmir: Contested identity, closed systems, open choices. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

Kak, J. (2008). Lalla’s relation to the Shaivite and Sufi traditions in Kashmir. In A. Rao (Ed.), The valley of Kashmir: The making and unmaking of a composite culture? (pp. 177- 205). New Delhi: Manohar.

Madan, T. N. (2008). Kashmir, Kashmiris, Kashmiriyat: An introductory essay. In A. Rao (Ed.), The valley of Kashmir: The making and unmaking of a composite culture? (pp. 1-34). New Delhi: Manohar.

Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1-25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/764257

Rai, M. (2004). Hindu rulers, Muslim subjects: Islam, rights, and the history of Kashmir. New Delhi: Permanent Black.

Volume IX, Issue VIII, AUGUST/2020 Page No : 514 Mukt Shabd Journal ISSN NO : 2347-3150

Snedden, C. (2017). Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. New Delhi: Speaking Tiger.

Sikand, Y. (2008). Popular Kashmiri Sufism and the challenge of scripturalist Islam (1900- 1989). In A. Rao (Ed.), The valley of Kashmir: The making and unmaking of a composite culture? (pp. 489-520). New Delhi: Manohar.

Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25-73). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Who is responsible for schismaticalness? Public or officials. (1936, August 8). Hamdard, p. 5. Srinagar State Archives.

Zutshi, C. (2003). Languages of belonging: Islam, regional identity, and the making of Kashmir. New Delhi: Permanent Black.

Volume IX, Issue VIII, AUGUST/2020 Page No : 515