KASHMIR AFTER DOGRAS POST 1947

                         “Kashmir after Dogra’s”
                  CHANGING POLITICAL SCENARIO
Author
SAJJAD KHAN
Email: - sajiidkhan60@gmail.com
Cell: - 7889501907
                                                                           

The Dogra clan which ruled Jammu & Kashmir almost for 101 years was founded by Maharaja Gulab Singh. The Dogra state with Hindu polity ruled from beganing with the might of the Gun, move broadly it can be called as a police state1 . it saw mass uprising in 1931 from the educated Muslim young man of the valley and was finally shook off by the transfer of power in 1947 by British2 to the two dominions of India and Pakistan. The end of colonial rule in 1947 was undoubtedly a defining movement of modern south Asian history. Indian achieved independence at midnight of 14th -15th august 1947 while Pakistan was born on the previous day and thus the territory that was once the British Indian empire was now partitioned and made initially into the two domains both straddling towards their historic destinies as sovereign nation states. The state of Jammu and Kashmir remained showerded in controversy and finally had to accede with the Indian union. The Kashmir question was more complex and directly related to the history of partition. As sumit Ganguly has argued the crux of the problem lay in the competing visions of the state construction in south Asia.

1.Since 1846 Kashmir had been under Dogras . The Dogra chief Maharaja Gulab Singh ruled with the Hindu elite and excited the Muslim majority from any share political power. His descendant maharaja Hari singh also ruled Kashmir with the help of a small Brahman dogra elite who controlled political Power as well as the most fertile agricultural land.

2.The political agitation was mostly under the banner of all Jammu and Kashmir national conference led by sheikh Mohammad Abdullah demanding rights for the Muslims and asserting a Kashmiri regional nationalism or kashmiriyat.

 

 In 1947 the Muslim majority state of Kashmir remained geographically contiguous with the Pakistan with the strong trade links with her. So Pakistan legitimately believed that it had a natural claim on the state. For Jinnah and the Muslim league, Pakistan without Kashmir would be incomplete, while for Nehru and the congress integration of Kashmir would buttress Indian secular credentials, which in the features proved to be an utter failure and a mistaken belief. Kashmir has been an intractable problem so far as indo-Pak relations are concerned. It has also posed a constant internal problems for India with forces of integration with India and session from it being in continuous struggle. An overriding factor in the situation is that Kashmir has become over the years a symbol as well as a test of Indian  secularism. if in 1947 Kashmir had acceded to Pakistan, Indian would have accepted the fact without being upset but once, as a result of the invasion of Kashmir by pathan tribes men and Pakistan troops and the persuasion of its popular leader Sheikh Abdullah the state of J& K acceded to Indian. the situation become different Pakistan claimed Kashmir on the ground. That it was a Muslim-majority state. This was unacceptable to secular India which did not accept two-nation theory for India the question of Kashmir is not merely retaining a small part of its territory but it impinged on the very basic character of the Indian state and society.

     Immediately after Kashmir accession in October 1947 India had offered a plebiscite under international auspices for the people of Kashmir to take a final decision on it. But there was a rider, Pakistan’s troops must vacate Kashmir before a plebiscite could be held. Till the land of 1953, the government of India was willing to abide by the results of a plebiscite it proper conditions were created for it. But it plebiscite could not be held, partly because Pakistan would not withdraw its forces from Pakistan held Kashmir and partly because Indo-Pak relation got enmeshed in the cold war. During 1953-54 the limited states entered into a virtual military alliance with Pakistan.

       By the end of 1956 the Indian government made it clear to Pakistan and international community that the situation in Kashmir and Indo-Pak relations had changed so completely. That its earlier offer had become absolute and Kashmir accession to Indian had become a settled fact. Since then so far as India is concerned Kashmir has been an irrevocable part of the nation, however, without openly saying so, the Indian government have been willing to accept the status quo, that is accept  the ceasefire time or lines of control as the permanent international border. But what about the sentiments and aspirations of the people of Kashmir is a matter of concern. The Article of 152 of the Indian constitution mentions that Jammu and Kashmir is not an ordinary state. This means that it had to be dealt with specially.

       In 1956, the constitution assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ratified the accession of the state to India. According to Prof. Bipan Chandra over the years the states special status was almost liquated. The symbolic of the changes were that in the nomenclature of the Sadr-e-Riyasat to governor and of the state prime minister to chief minister, a sizeable section of Kashmiri’s resented this erosion of the provisions relating to the states autonomy on the other hand Article 370 gave birth to a powerful movement in Hindunized Jammu region of the state for full accession to India, a greater share for Jammu in government services and even for separation of Jammu from Kashmir. The movement started by praja Parishad soon acquired communal colors with the danger of the state being divided on religious lines, Kashmir being Muslim majority and Jammu being Hindu majority. The Praya Parishad agitation played into the hands of pro-Pakistan elements in Kashmir. It tarnished Indians secular image and weakened indias case on Kashmir. It also unsettled Sheikh Abdullah and made him doubt the strength of Indian secularism.

    Indian internal problem with regard to Kashmir begin with Sheikh Abdullah, a Man of remarkable courage and integrity having a mass appeal but who was also autocratic. Pressed by Pro-Pakistani elements in Kashmir valley demanding merger with Pakistan and harassed by communalists in Jammu demanding full integration with Indian, Abdullah began to veer towards separation. Exaggerating the strength of communal forces and the weakness of secularism in India. He increasingly talked of the limited character of the accession of the state to India and of the full autonomy for the state. By the mid of July 1953, Abdullah publicly demanded that Kashmir should become independent. The majority of his colleagues in the cabinet and his party opposed his new political position and asked the Sadr-e-Riyasat to dismiss him on the charge of corruption and practices disruptions and dangerous foreign contacts. Abdullah was consequently dismissed and Bakshi Ghulam Mohmmad installed as Prime minister. The new government immediately put Abdullah under arrest. He, however remained a martyr and a hero for many Kashmiris. Abdullah political career, closely interwoven with that of Kashmiris had a cohequered history from 1953 till his death in 1982. Under Pt. Nehru’s pressure he was released on 8 January 1958 but was rearrested three months later as he continued with his separatist campaign. Nehru got Abdullah released again in April 1964. Abdullah however continued to claim, that Kashmiri’s accession on to India was not final and he would fight to secure for state the right of self- determination. But since he was also against the states merger with Pakistan, he was frontly opposed by pro-Pakistanis political groups led by Moulavi Farooq and the Awami action committee. Abdullah was put under house arrest and again deprived of his liberty in May 1965. The restictions on him were removed only in 1968.

Bakshi Gulam Mohmmad was succeeded by Gh. Mohd Sadiq and then by Mir Qasim who were men of integrity but no effective administrations or skillful politicians. The state government under these leaders never acquired. Wide popularity, though the pro-Pakistani elements remained weak. The Bangladesh war and the breakup of Pakistan in 1972 had a significant impact on Kashmir, the pro-Pakistan Awami action committee and the secessionist plebiscite front suffered a severe political jolt. Abdullah now got into a better frame of mind, did some rethinking and adopted a more conciliatory approach towards the central government. Indira Gandhi inturn extended a hand of Friendship, Lifted all restrictions and opened a dialogue with him. Abdullah informally agreed not to raise the question of self-determination or plebiscite and to limit his demands to that of greater autonomy within indian union, finally in February 1975 he once again became Chief minister and the leader of the national conference. in July 1977 mid-term poll in the state he won hands down, his son Farooq Abdullah succeeded him at Chief minister on his death in 1982. Since 1982-2002 the state has either  been ruled mostly by Farooq Abdullah or has been under presidents rule. Farooq won a comfortable majority in the mid-term elections on June 1983 but acrimony soon developed between him and the central government in July 1984 in a coup against Farooq his Brother-in-law, G M Shah split the national conference acting at the behest of the central government, the Governor, JagMohan dismissed Farooq as chief minister and installed a more puppet G M Shah in his place, G M shah was both corrupt and inept, his government was dismissed in march 1986 and presidents rule imposed in the state.

     Rajiv Gandhi entered into alliance with Farooq Abdullah for the assembly elections in early 1987. But Farooq Abdullah who won the elections was unable to manage the state politically or administratively thereafter the movement for the secession stepped in the valley, both Hizbul Mujahidin and other fundamentalist, pro-Pakistan groups and those for independence led by the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front (JKLF) took to violent agitations and armed insurgency. All these groups were actively financed, trained and armed by Pakistan and carried on a campaign of Murders, Kidnappers and torture of political opponents and attacks on police stations,government offices and other public buildings. To contain terrorism and insurgency, V P Singh at the center dismissed Farooq Abdullah government which had lost control over the valley to the terrorist groups and imposed president’s rule in the state. Farooq however made another political comeback winning the long-delayed elections in 1996. In the 2002 state elections he lost power and the state come to be ruled by an alliance of the people democratic party (PDP) headed by the Mufti Mohmmad Syed and the congress party.

The need of the hour is to find out what led to yawing rift between hindunized Jammu and radicalizing  Kashmir.Further it needs a detailed research study to find out what strengthened  the position of secessionist groups in the valley.

 On the insistence of his daughter Mehbooba, Mufti Mohmmad Syed come out of eight years of political hibernation in 1999 to from the people’s Democratic Party, he did so with a clear-cut purpose. This was to restore lasting peace to Kashmir and end the political disempowerment of its people. He took up this challenge in the full knowledge of the long hard road that lay ahead, three wars have been the harvest reaped from the dispute since 1947 and the possibility of fourth which would be much blooder in nature is by no-means avoided. Mufti know therefore that Kashmiris would not know real peace until India and Pakistan Arrived at a settlement of the Kashmir issue, a key purpose of his new party was therefore to persuade the government of India to initiate an unconditional dialogue with Kashmiris for resolution of the Kashmir  problem. The security establishment in New Delhi greeted his announcement with undisguised hostility, labeling him a soft- separatist who absolutely couldn’t be trusted but according to Mufti shab the first requirement for peace in Kashmir was the restoration of a genuine democratically elected government in Kashmir that could be seen by all to have the backing of the majority of the Kashmiris.

       In Hindsight one can see how closely Mufti and then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee must have worked in the five years that followed, it helps to understand Vajpayee adamant insistence on a truly honest election in Kashmir in 2002, it explains why Vajpayee held out his hand of friendship to Pakistan despite the kargil war and did so from Srinagar.

     In Dr. Manmohan singh, Mufti found a prime minister who was with if anything even more keen than Vajpayee to end the dispute with Pakistan. His crowning movement came when he presided over the opening of Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road at Caman Post Bridge over the Jhelum in April 2005. The memory of his face, suffused with pride and contentment as 10,000 Kashmiris crowded the slopes on the other side in their best clothes to watch the event.

          Mufti would have realized his dream in 2008 had the Amaranth and scam with its curfews, crackdowns and killings not erupted that summer in Oct. the state would have held the second free and fair election since the end of the militancy the turnout in the valley would not have been 30% but close to the 70% as the year 2014. the PDP would almost certainly have come back to power and Kashmiris history would not have taken the grim turn it took next six years. Kashmir would not see the next generations of stone throwers, no mowing down of unarmed youth, no filling of jails with stone throwers ripe for training into the next crop of freedom fighters. Afzal Guru would almost certainly not have been hanged in 2013. By now the terror and repression of the 1990’s would have become a distant memory for all but the families of the deceased. Instead today Kashmir is once more a seething cauldron of disaffection and despair. A lesser man would have been crushed by disappointment so no one would have blamed Mufti if he had refused to come back into fray in December 2014. But the desire to complete what he had so nearly achieved nine years earlier persisted. Had the PDP won a complete majority Mufti might have been able to pick up the threads more or less where he had dropped them in 2008. But 28 seats only two more than BJP and a yawning rift between aggressively Hindu Jammu and radicalizing Kashmir. He found this option closed to remain a single state Jammu and Kashmir had to work together. And to attain lasting peace in Kashmir Mufti had to get the government of Narender Modi to reach out to Pakistan once more. Mufti could do neither without forming a working relationship with the BJP both. In Kashmir and in new delhi with immense courage, knowing full well how he would be vilified by his detractors, that is what he set out to do the last to month of his life must have been most difficult Mufti ever faced. For Modi proved not to be a Vajpayee and the BJP proved not to be another congress. Mufti’s attempt to remind Pakistan that by not attempting to disrupt the elections in Kashmir, Pakistan had made itself a party to its results was immediately misrepresented as treachery by many people his attempt to apply a healing touch policy in Kashmir as he had done in 2002, also went awry because bitterness had sunk too deep into sections of the radicalized youth in Kashmir. Who had been facing unrelenting police terror, since 2008 which outburst in July 2016. The situation was mishandled by central Government and failed to understand the sentiments of majority of kashmiris who are paralyzed in their homes behind the protest. The families who lost their loved ones are facing deep trauma and depression. The Kashmir people are the symbol of Human race caught in conflict. people who should be professionals, children’s who should be in school suddenly find themselves at the receiving end of the violence.

                        Modi government made the dream of one nation, one mark, one legislation, one head come true On August 5, 2019, by abrogating Article 370 and Article 35A from Jammu and Kashmir, the State was included in the mainstream along with the entire country. the end of special status to state of Jammu and Kashmir and it's bifurcation into union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and ladakh on 5th August 2019 opened a new chapter in the history of Kashmir. The move was taken in a view to develop Kashmir on modern grounds as the world's most lovable tourist destination but the scheme ended in embryo as the development works shourded into controversy of corruption and nepotism. 

  

Chapter 2nd          

  THE  RISE OF ABDUL RASHIID SHIEKH IN KASHMIR POLITICS. 

The meteoric rise of Engineer Rashid’s Awami Ittehad Party (AIP) has deepened political uncertainty in Jammu and Kashmir amid speculations that the controversial politician could emerge as a potential kingmaker in the upcoming assembly election.  Rashid’s fortune has shone through at a time when the  BJP and its  allies in Kashmir appear to be struggling to expand their political appeal after suffering spectacular setbacks in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Despite enjoying the Union government’s patronage, the J&K Apni Party  led by Altaf Bukhari, put up a forgettable show with its only prominent candidate and former J&K minister, Ashraf Mir, losing his security deposit after securing less than 10% vote share in the Srinagar Lok Sabha constituency.  Sajad Lone’s party JKPC also seems to be struggling to hold its ground. The party’s vote share in Baramulla Lok Sabha constituency went down from about 22.65%  in the 2019 election, when it fielded Raja Aijaz Ali, to 16.75% in the recent election when Lone himself was in the fray. To maintain its grip on J&K, the BJP recently curtailed the powers of any elected government in the erstwhile state through a recent gazette notification that expanded the powers of the Union territory’s lieutenant governor – a Union government appointee. But with its Jammu unit in disarray and the voting behaviour of the electorate in Kashmir witnessing a ground-breaking shift towards Rashid’s idea of democracy, the saffron party could find it difficult to crack J&K’s electoral arithmetic. The National Conference-Congress alliance is widely believed to emerge as the single largest bloc in the elections, but it too may fall short of a comfortable majority. Against this backdrop, speculations are rife that the BJP is extending an olive branch to the AIP leader and treating him with kid gloves after his spectacular victory in Lok Sabha polls in which he defeated former J&K chief minister  Omar Abdullah. Rashid got permission from the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which arrested him in 2019 on terror funding charges, to take oath as a member of the Lok Sabha. 

In a contradictory move, Sarjan Barkati, a popular religious figure who rallied masses at the peak of unrest in Kashmir in 2016, was squeezed out of the upcoming electoral contest after the Election Commission rejected his nomination papers for Zainapora assembly constituency of Shopian in South Kashmir.  Both Rashid and Barkati have been booked under the provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and face serious charges of financing terrorism in J&K. Rashid has also faced allegations of “misusing” the phone facility in the Tihar jail, according to a disclosure made by the NIA at a Delhi court on Wednesday (August) 28. Meanwhile, AIP’s ranks have swelled in recent weeks, with the son of a former Hurriyat Conference secretary and JKPC leader, among a motley group of lower- and middle-rung political activists and workers from the National Conference (NC) and People’s Democratic Party (PDP, joining Rashid’s party.  In this scenario, Rashid, who led in 18 out of 21 assembly segments of Baramulla Lok Sabha constituency, could well emerge as a kingmaker, if not the king himself. With some members of Jamaat-e-Islami also entering the electoral fray, analysts believe that the emerging political developments will further fracture the mandate in Kashmir which suits the BJP.