[Reader-list] Reply to Pawan

[junaid]

Mr. Pawan Durrani,

Possibly you should have read Mridu Rai's book to understand why Dogra rule was 'Hindu' and why other rulers Mughals and Afghans could not be described as essentially 'Islamic', though it was surely Muslims who ruled. (By the way, there were no separate Turks and Mughals who came to rule Kashmir). An Islamic rule would be one where laws are made on the bases of Koran and Hadith, and would be called as Sharia. Both temporal and spiritual realms would be regulated by it. Both civil and criminal law would be quintessentially Sharia. And they are made by religious scholars. This was not the case for Mughals or Afghans: It was either laws made by the sovereign or the tribal laws. And even though both may have invoked Koran and Hadith, yet most of their content was inspired by local needs than religious zeal or inspiration. (I should not be understood as saying Islamic law is anyway superior to other laws, like tribal laws etc. Or that Afghans or Mughal rule was any benign.)  

For Dogras, who drew a fake Rajput lineage, with an opportunistic support from state-sponsored historians, both Dogra and British, the way they invoked Hinduism in ruling Kashmir was stupendous. It is no secret that poor Kashmiri Muslim peasants were stripped bare by Dogra rulers to fund temple constructions in not only Kashmir and Jammu, but in Punjab too. The Dogras restarted the hated practice of Begar (forced labour), originally invented by ancient Hindu rulers of Kashmir. Begar resulted in wide spread death and destruction of Kashmir Muslims. Thousands of Muslim youth perished carrying load, like mules, barefooted, to Maharaja's Gilgit frontier. And while this was going on, Kashmir's Hindu population, laying exclusive claim to literacy, and through their landed influence, sustained this terrible rule loyally. (And they were powerful even during Mughal and Afghan times, when they occupied much of the bureaucratic positions). 

Dogras depended on the so-called Pandits to extract revenue from Kashmir's poor Muslim peasants as well as artisans. At times, despite verbal protests from even the East India Company officials who were so brutal in their own way, Gulab Singh took away half of the produce of the Muslim peasants. In his greed to collect more booty he even taxed marriages among Muslims. The Hindu Kashmiris were exempt. The Dogras took away the lands of some leftover Muslim elite and reduced them to penury, but during this time, the Hindu landlords expanded their estates. Thus a miniscule Hindu population, not more than 5 percent, came to rule 95 percent Muslims of Kashmir. That too brutally. 

Pawan Durrani should be given compensation for the grand estates his forefathers had to give up. But who will compensate all those millions of rickety, malnourished, barely clothed Kashmiri Muslim peasants who were not only materially degraded but dehumanized too? In 1947, by a sleight of hand, and without bothering to ask Kashmiri Muslims, who constitute an overwhelming majority of its people, Kashmir was handed by a Hindu ruler to India. In this, some Muslim political leaders were coaxed too; they realized but only too late. During this time, many Kashmiri Muslim leaders were forced into exile. During the same time, hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Jammu were either forced to flee or massacred. 

A bearded Kashmir Muslim militant provokes a frenzied response from Pawan, and he begins to shout: "Hatay Mauji, Islamic Fundamentalism hay aau!" For him an Indian soldier with a tilak on his forehead, a saffron ribbon around his waist, a poster of Shivji hanging inside his bunker is Bharat Mata's secular poot. 

In 1990, Kashmir's Hindus made a choice: They wanted India. That is why they left. No doubt there was a threat perception. Some Hindus were killed. According to Sumantra Bose out of 273 killings by 20th January 1990, almost 73 were Hindus. No doubt, disproportionate. Most of these were highly influential Hindus, including a Jan Sangh leader. No other minority left. Even though, many Sikhs were killed in Chattisinghpura, (by who, we should know by now) they remained in Kashmir. In a state-sponsored exodus one and a half lakh Hindus were transported overnight to Jammu and other Indian cities. And remember it was a day after Jagmohan took over as governor, and promised to punish Kashmiri Muslims. True to his word, after many Hindus left, he imposed a protracted curfew strangulating Kashmir's Muslims. Dozens of Kashmir's Muslims were massacred at a number of places. Gaw Kadal, just being one example. 

In Jashne Azadi, nowhere is it said that 60000 Muslims have been killed in 15 years. Although even by conservative estimates 80000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed over these years (some believe that even the 10000 odd disappeared have been eliminated too), but the film leaves it open. It states how the actual number is widely conflicted.

It is not Kashmiri Muslims who Arabicized Kashmiri names. (Give examples if you can). It is in fact Dogras who Sanskritised it, and India which sustained it. Consider, for example, changing the popular name Islamabad to an official Anantnag. And it is not Kashmiri Muslims who deny Kashmir's ancient Hindu rulers, but Kashmir's Hindus who deny the existence of Kashmir's Muslims. It is as if all Kashmir is about is its miniscule Hindus. It is as if the only tragedy in Kashmir is that of its Hindus. As if death, destruction, plunder and rapine of its Muslims is not an issue that merits world's attention. It is time world speaks about Kashmir's Muslims. 

Much has been spoken about Hindus. Many lethargic comparisons have been made with Holocaust. Many chick pea-brained 'film makers' have lamented that world remained silent, while Kashmir's Hindus got free salaries, reservations in education and tremendous material support and publicity. It is time for appropriated voices to speak up. For stories buried in fake encounters to be exhumed. For alternative histories and memories to unsettle the state-sponsored, miniscule-made-mainstream, litanies.  

Pawan you really should run after Jashne-Azadi. Follow it wherever it goes. It might tire you out of your ignorance, prejudice, and hatred. 

Mohamad Junaid      
  
 

Pawan Durrani wrote:          

Dear All:
On Thursday September 20th Mr. Sanjay Kak's movie Jashn-e-Azadi (yajynya has
become Jashn-e)was screened in the Louis McMillan Auditorium of the Yale
University. Rajni Ji  and I attended the screening. 

The screening was sponsored by Ms Mridhu Rai, Associate Professor
mridu.rai at yale.edu. She has recently published a book Hindu Rulers, Muslim
Subjects: Islam Rights & the history of Kashmir. (Apparently this book was 
part of the motivation for Mr. Sanjay Kak to make the movie. Given below in
parenthesis is her back ground.

(Mridu Rai joined the department in July 2001 as an assistant professor. She
was educated at Delhi University; the Centre for Historical Studies at 
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi; and Columbia University, where she
received a PhD in modern south Asian history. Her doctoral research focused
on the problem of religion and politics in the making of protest in modern 
Kashmir between the 1840s and the 1940s. In 2004 it culminated in her book,
Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir
< http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/materials/rai-hindu.html> . Professor
Rai's new research turns to the region of Bihar, to explore the
relationships between caste, territory, region and nation as they evolved 
from the period of British colonial rule into the postcolonial)

There were 23 people in all present in the screening hall. That included Mr.
Sanjay Kak and us two. Most of the attendants were from the South Asian stud 
department of Indian origin. There was one or  two students of Pakistani
origin and may be two or three of American and European descent.

The documentary is about two and a half hour long monologue. The thrust of 
the documentary is to manipulated to portray the burning desire for the
freedom among 'Kashmiris' (read Kashmiri Muslims). The movie touches upon
the 500 years of colonization of Kashmir. It was interesting to note the 
wordings of narration and the imagery of this narration. Mr Kak introduced
the Kalhanna's Rajatarangani as the Hindu rule of Kashmir. He also stated
the "Hindu" rule of Kashmir before 1948. But then he chooses to describe the 
500 years of pre-Dogra rule as the colonial rule of Turks, Afghans, Mughals,
and other nationalities as if it was not an Islamic rule. In that one
sentence he tries to pass the suffering under these colonizers as the 
sufferings of Muslims and not of Hindus. That during this period 100%
Kashmiri Hindu population was reduced to at most 25% of the population was
presented as Muslim suffering. He quotes Kalhanna "that Kashmir can not be 
conquered by colonization but by spiritual merit", as the ethos of Kashmiri
Muslims. That the Muslims (both foreign and the converted) were the rulers
under whose reign Kashmiri Hindu were massacred, humiliated and forced out 
of Kashmir (as evidenced by the Saaraswats and Vaadama Ayers and Kashmiri of
Gujarat)  and converted to Islam is completely presented as the sufferings
of the Muslims.

That since the 1948 till 1990 the successive J&K Governments were formed by 
the  National conference (previously "Muslim Conference") and the people at
the helm were Kashmiri Muslims is also presented as the colonization by the
Indians. That this Government systematically marginalized the Hindus of 
Kashmir by putting reservations for the majority, snatching any landed
property with out compensation (there by violating the property rights of a
minority) is portrayed as the land reform act of the Government.  The sole 
livelihood of the Kashmiri Hindus through education was denied and they were
forced out of state (to achieve Islamization) is also supposed to have
happened because of the colonization by India. That 1947 incursions of 
Pakistan and the development of Islamic Fundamentalism with support from
Pakistan and the outsiders is completely glossed over. Even though the
mention is made of the foreign Islamic mercenaries in Kashmir but it is 
portrayed as acceptable and not such an important issue, where as presence
of Indian troops and the Indian tourists is presented as the yoke on the
local Muslims. (Who shown as pulling the tourists snowy upslope of the 
Gulmarg.)

The presentation of Shaheed (A Islamic category used for the Shahaadat ) and
the Mujahideen (An Islamic religious category used for the fighters of the
faith) is presented as freedom fighters. The time and again portrayal of the 
"Muslim Cemeteries"  and dead Muslim Mujahideen is lamentable but their
killing and raping of the innocent victims both hindu (and Muslims) is
accepted as the justifiable for the Azadi.
Mr. Kak mentiones 200 dead and 160,000 migrated in bold numbers with the 
small print of "in one year". One wonders why did he choose only one year
numbers to show about the Hindu sufferings but boldly says 60,000 total dead
or lost in the last 15 years. This choice is made show the balance in his 
approach like a chameleon Indian leftist/secularist.

Finally when the documentary was screened we were the first one to raise
hand for questions.  We turned toward the audience and challenged the very
notion this being a struggle for the Azadi. We put forth that this is 
movement for the Islamization of Kashmir. We also pointed out the 500 years
of colonization Mr. Kak mentions is 500 years of Islamic rule in which our
population was reduced from 1055 to 20% . It was Kashmiri Hindu tragedies 
which Mr. Kak is portraying as the Muslim tragedies. We pointed out that the
first act of this movement in 1990 was to throw out 400 hundred thousand
Hindus from the valley and became refuge in their own country. If it was a 
Azadi movement why would valley be cleansed of the non-Muslim minorities.
That scenario fits the Islamization movement better.  We asked, why would
all the imagery and the language of this movement be couched in the Islamic 
categorization? Why would Arabic be used instead of Kashmiri language? Why
would the names of the Kashmiri place names be changed to Arabacized and
Islamic names? Why would the past Hindu history be denied? Why would 
non-Kashmiri foreign Muslim mercenaries be allowed in and create havoc in
Kashmir? Why would Pakistan be so heavily involved?

Mr. Kak had no answers for any of these; he tried to pass the Islamic
language as the normal use of religion in freedom movements. But I asked why 
was not inclusive religious symbolism used for the independence?
Kak admitted to the audience that there was Jihad like situation created for
Kashmiri Hindus who had to leave valley.    Eventually I was asked to allow 
others to ask questions. But there were only two other people who asked one
question each, one on the lines of secularism and the other, a Pakistani,
gave some comments on state of JKLF in Pakistan.

We attended the dinner after the movie and we continued to occupy Mr. Kak's 
and several others attention on the dishonest portrayal of the Kashmir
issue. During dinner we distributed the copies of  Ashokji Pandits
Documentary ....And world remained silent.... to some of the attendees and 
requested them to watch it and pass it on to other students.

That is the story from Yale...

Thanks