The outbreak of the current unrest in Kashmir has made it clear that the Kashmir problem cannot be wished away. The problem is alive and threatens lives, a problem which calls for a durable solution. The current unrest started when Burhan Wani, a young commander of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen who was popular on social media, was killed by security forces on July 8, 2016, leading to protests in different areas of the Kashmir Valley. It is reported that in these protests, which defied curfews with attacks mainly on security forces, more than 70 persons have so far died. Many persons, civilians as well as security personnel, have been injured. Of those injured, a special concern is for those who suffered serious eye injuries due to the use of pellet guns.
If we desire lasting peace, not a temporary truce, we need to understand the Kashmir problem dispassionately. For that purpose, we need to ask relevant questions, for without such questions we are unlikely to get relevant answers.
The first question that needs to be asked is: "Who is a Kashmiri?" It is amazing that those who rush to give their opinions on the Kashmir problem fail to ask this elementary question. While it is reasonable to suggest that the opinion of Kashmiris must be considered in arriving at a solution, absence of clarity on who a Kashmiri is leads to confusion. The answer to this question is not as simple as may appear at first glance.
It may be argued that Kashmiris are those who share Kashmiri as their mother tongue. This shared linguistic identity lends itself to a division in terms of religion, for it is clear to see that there are Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Hindus. Further, there are among Kashmiri Muslims strong differences between Shias and Sunnis. On the other hand, it may be argued that all the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir are Kashmiris in an extended sense. If this is the case, then we have to consider Dogras of the Jammu region and Ladakhis of the Ladakh region as well. Kashmiri, Dogri, and Ladakhi are different languages. To add to the complexity, there are other languages such as Gujari of Gujjars, originally nomadic people, who have retained their cultural identity. Dogras are mostly Hindus and Ladakhis are Tibetan Buddhists or Shia Muslims.
While Kashmiri Muslims are visible, Kashmiri Hindus are invisible. These invisible Kashmiris find hardly any mention in a discussion on Kashmiris. They have been made invisible partly because of the nomenclature of 'Pandits' and 'migrants' which conceals the fact that owing to the peculiarity of Kashmiri history Kashmiri Hindus are known as 'Pandits', giving them a brahmanical caste identity. There are no other castes among Kashmiri Hindus and so no caste system exists among them as elsewhere among Hindus. Kashmiri Pandits represent a religious group within the broader group of Kashmiris. These Kashmiri Hindus are often described as 'migrants' because they had left Srinagar and other places in the Valley in 1990, especially after the night of January 19, 1990. Indeed, they were not migrants who left their homeland voluntarily for a better future but refugees who were forced to flee under threat when they were given the option by Islamic activists reportedly to 'convert, leave, or perish'. The Hizb-ul-Mujahideen is believed to have played an active part in it.
The editors of A Long Dream of Home: The Persecution, Exodus and Exile of Kashmiri Pandits (2015), Siddhartha Gigoo and Varad Sharma, have done a service in bringing together narrations from different generations of these Hindus, highlighting the terror, nights of terrors, that they faced, circumstances in which the community was exiled, the struggle for survival all these years, and the lingering longing for returning to their homes. Later, as reported widely, among the remaining Kashmiri Hindus, terrorists carried out their killings in the villages, among others, of Sangrampora and Wandhama. It is not uncommon to describe what happened to Kashmiri Hindus as an act of ethnic cleansing. Estimates of how many persons actually left varies, but by the end of the year almost the entire community was forced out, many of them finding shelters in the camps of Jammu and elsewhere. According to the World Factbook of the CIA, about 3,00,000 Kashmiri Pandits from Jammu and Kashmir were internally displaced as of 2006. They are yet to be settled.
Not only Kashmiri Hindus but also Dogras, Ladakhis and Gujjars feel resentful about Kashmiri Muslims pretending to be sole spokespersons for the entire state. Speakers at a seminar conducted in Jammu recently by Jammu for India raised concerns, for example, over 'Islamic domination' and Kashmiri Muslims pretending to represent all the people of the state. This was reported in newspapers under the heading, "After Ladakh, Jammu joins 'azadi from Kashmir' chorus". The Dogras of Jammu have not forgotten terrorist attacks believed to be by the Lashkar-e-Toiba on their Raghunath temple in 2002.
Thupstan Chhewang, the member of parliament from Ladakh, is reported to have said that the people of Ladakh do not want to remain with Kashmir and wish to secure for themselves union territory status. Gujjars, though mostly Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, feel sceptical about their numbers being properly represented in different censuses and demand their language be safeguarded, going so far as to demand separate statehood. Actually, of the three regions of Kashmir the Kashmir region is the smallest, accounting for less than 16 per cent of the total area.
The impression that Kashmiri Muslims, more specifically Kashmiri Sunni Muslims, have appointed themselves spokespersons for all the people of Jammu and Kashmir needs to be qualified. The role of the Indian government over years, apparently without a coherent policy on Kashmir, and of the media cannot be denied. Moreover, it needs to be clarified that not Kashmiri Sunni Muslims but among them such persons as the leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference see themselves as the sole representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They do not participate in elections but let stones and bullets, not ballots, do the talking to establish their claim.
I remember Ahmad Saeed Malihabadi, the respected editor of Azad Hind, putting a relevant question to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq during one of the Hurriyat's visits to Calcutta to mobilize sympathy. This was after the 2010 Kashmir unrest. Reacting to the lament that young boys were getting killed by security forces, he asked why parents were letting young boys face armed forces and throw stones at them. Were the parents not worried about the security of their children? Could protests not be made in a non-violent manner? To the way of thinking of Malihabadi, who had worked with Mahatma Gandhi for several months for peace and communal harmony during his stay in Calcutta in 1947, stone pelting was a sure recipe for escalating violence.
Thus, to answer the question raised earlier, Kashmiris have a linguistic identity which has been fractured on a religious basis. A clear distinction exists between Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Hindus. Other people living in the state of Jammu and Kashmir have principal linguistic identities as Dogras, Ladakhis, and Gujjars. An important minority such as Sikhs has its own identity and has been on the receiving end as well. The massacre of 36 Sikhs in Chittisinghpura on March 20, 2000, is still remembered. It was carried out, as is generally believed, by the Lashkar-e-Toiba.
Thus, nobody can claim to represent all the people of the state, except in a formal sense the chief minister of the state, who has been elected according to constitutional provisions, so long as the person concerned has not lost the moral legitimacy to do so. For matters concerning Jammu and Kashmir if the opinion of the people has to be taken then all the people mentioned here need to be consulted.
True, as shown by the 2011 census data, Muslims constitute a majority (68.31 per cent) in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, followed by Hindus (28.43 per cent) and others. It is to be noted at the same time that they are in a minority in the regions of Jammu and Ladakh and these figures relate to all Muslims and Hindus, not only Kashmiris. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that in any civilized society, not just a democratic society, the minority has a right to be heard. If not, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, could not have claimed representation in all matters concerning the future of India as a leader of All-India Muslim League.
To Be Concluded
