Kashmiriyat: the Victim of Political Construction
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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