The Muslims of Kashmir Valley are responsible for the pitiable state of political affairs J&K finds itself in, in 2024; what was once an autonomous state, is now a mere Union Territory, because they blindly followed politico-religious demagogues. Under the influence of the latter, they caught the habit of looking at things through an Islamist prism. Consequently they began viewing such political concepts as liberalism, democracy, secularism, and nationalism, etc., as satanic innovations. Also, they saw azadi, freedom, of J&K State as the realization of glory of the religion of Islam, with the whole former Princely State of J&K to be independent and part of the Pakistan caliphate at the same time – a sort of phantasmagoria. In order to see the dream come true, it was incumbent upon Muslims to do Jihad. Jihad was interpreted to mean killing of the kafir (non-believer). Caliphate was interpreted as being the only system of government prescribed by Islam. Who prescribed this caliphate? What was the procedure for setting it up? Who ordered the killing of the kafir? These were the questions never answered for the simple reason that they were seldom asked. Jihadism. A U.P.-based educationist, Ritesh Srivastava, recently remarked that “Militant off-shoot of any religion is profoundly dangerous for parent religion and the society”. That is because in order to accommodate violence in religion first thing needed would be to twist religious teachings. So the first victim is the religion itself. The second is the society that tamely accepts such re-interpretation of religious teachings – that jihadists kill mostly Muslims is what is called “poetic justice”. Islamist Caliphate.
If caliphate be accepted as the Islam-prescribed system of Government, then questions arise: Why is Afghanistan an Islamist emirate, Qatar a dynastic emirate, Saudi Arabia a monarchy, Pakistan a military-guided kleptocracy, Turkey a roughshod democracy ruled by one person, Iran a democracy subject to the veto of “the Supreme Leader” –(without his approval the Shia State of Iran could not be ruled because he is the Ayotullah, the representative of God on earth, who speaks for the Hidden Imam – the twelfth Imam in the line of Hazrat Ali, peace be upon him, who disappeared in a cave and is expected to reappear again as the Mahdi, the guided one (pp. 184 & 229 Destiny Disrupted Tamim Ansari)). So on and so forth.
So, the first and foremost reform needed in Kashmir would be to teach the Muslims to remove their Islamist spectacles that inhibit seeing things in black and white, that inhibit them from questioning expedient reinterpretation of religious teachings.We live in the time of nation states. Nationalism was a French invention of the late 18th century which has now become a fact of life. Previously states were usually based on religion or dynastic ties; and citizens owed loyalty either to the ruling family or the religion, sometimes both. The priests, the feudal landlords and the king exploited the people. The monarch claimed that it was his divine right to be the king; that the country belonged to him; and thatpeople were subject to him; and that they ate his food, breathed his air,walked on his roads, etc. About 1790 the French people rose in rebellion, dispatched the king along with his divine right. Also they liquidated his feudatories, and the self-appointed guardians of religion, the priests. In place of the Cross the image of La Guillotine became the object of their devotion –(this did not mean that they renounced their Christian faith, rather that they would no longer brook exploitation by priests). As a result of this Revolution the allegiance to the monarch was replaced by loyalty to the fatherland. French people became the lords of their land and equal citizens of the fatherland. France became a nation state, i.e., country and people with same borders. For now, all states of the world including Muslim states are nation states where the country and people share same borders. All nation states work for their perceived national interest.However, even nation states have limitations. No nation state is homogeneous in terms of affiliation to caste, tribe, ethnicity, religion, region, language.Islamists’ dream of caliphate/emirate: Presuming that at tremendous cost to life Muslims obtain territory and people, the first step towards its establishment would be to appoint an emir or a caliph, which, however, no one knows how to do (there being no set procedure in Islam for government formation and succession to political power).
Rival claimants would catch each other’s throats and land the country into the throes of a civil war as happened in early 1990s in Afghanistan where the mujahideen of yester years, on beholding glimpses of political power, degenerated overnight into butchers. Presuming that after success of jihadist enterprise somehow someone would be put on the seat of power like Mullah Omar was in Afghanistan in mid1990s, he would be appointed for life. Modern day people, blooded in democracy, tolerate one person on the seat power hardly for five years. Then they feel restless. The notion of life-time emirate/caliphate would have to be thrust on such people at the point of a gun. So the regime would have to be an authoritarian one.Consider this: Should the emir/caliph prove to be incompetent, corrupt, prone to favouritism, nepotism, he would have to be assassinated because there be no procedure how he could be changed.Presuming the emir does not die even when physically emaciated and mentally retarded.Presuming the emir/caliph dies a natural death, the regime would have to face a succession crisis. Again rival claimants would be at each other’s throats. And, if for some reason various claimants to the throne are not inclined to fight each other over succession, say for the reason that none among them be sure of his strength against others but does not wish to see any of his rivals on the seat of power, then as a matter of compromise they would push forward the son of the deceased ruler. This way the emirate/caliphate would sooner or later give way to dynastic rule. If Americans had not invaded Afghanistan, that country would have faced succession crisis after Mullah Omar’s death. For now Afghanistan is again under Taliban rule. Succession issue would haunt the country sooner or later. Should then Kashmiri Muslim youth die for what will be an undemocratic authoritarian regime, having prospects to degenerate, sooner or later, into dynastic rule, i.e. a kingship! Also consider this:
Modern day Islamist jihadists happen to be mostly the members of sectarian outfits who don’t see eye to eye on any issue. Also many of them happen to be takfiri – those who invoke doctrine of excommunication and declare other Muslims as murtad, apostate, to justify their slaughter – like the Kharijites of early times did. It is these takfiri people who blast mosques, and shrines when full of people; and indulge in brutal beheadings. It is impossible that takfiri and sectarian people would accept someone as caliph/emir who did not belong to their particular sect. The Taliban Islamist Emirate of Afghanistan was/is not only sectarian but also ethno-centric. The Taliban are Pashtun nationalists in the guise of Islam. Right since the inception in 1747 by Ahmad Khan Sadozai Abdali (Ahmad Shah Durrani since then) of the Afghanistan State, Pashtuns disenfranchised nonPashtuns such as Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks. Since then only once did a nonPashtun, i.e., Tajik Habibullah, rule Kabul and that too for only less than a year (1929). Pashtuns so resented him that they nicknamed him Baccha Saqqa (the son of a water carrier).Also the Islamists preach their own extraordinary world view. As for example, Mullah Fazlullah and his cadres closed down girls’ schools in Swat, Pakistan, and stopped health workers from administering polio drops to children saying, “To cure a disease before its onset is not in accordance with Sharia law (pp. 97-98 I am Malala Malala Yousafzai & Christina Lamb)”. Andduring 1987 election campaign Muslim United Front (MUF) party boss, Qazi Nisar Ahmad, opposed family planning and advised Muslims to reproduce more children than Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) produced watches. MUF party bosses also demanded that certain parts of the school syllabus should be deleted and replaced by education based on social, spiritual, scientific, and technical matters (pp.157,159 Jammu and Kashmir at Political Crossroads P. S. Verma). Islamists happen to be paranoid about women’s education. They are afraid of Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin. If Muslims reproduce too many children who will give them education? They would be enrolled in free board and lodge Islamist Madrassas offering limited education. If education were thus subordinated to ideology Muslims would remain backward economically and education-wise especially in the fields of science and technology, more especially military technology. This would make them weak in terms of defence preparedness. A time would come when technologically advanced military powers would subjugate them – not a good prospect for Muslims and Islam. (Religious education should be viewed as a significant part of but not the whole education).Former Princely Kashmir State: The most proximate Muslim state in relation to Kashmir is Pakistan – (by way of a note of caution, let it be stated that the term “Kashmir” is an extremely vague one; its magnitude changes with change in context; thus, it means Kashmir Valley, Indian-administered Union Territory of J&K, Indian-Administered J&K State; or the whole former Princely J&K State). Pakistan is significant because it claims whole Kashmir as its own territory.
Pakistan’s perceived geostrategic interest is to capture Kashmir along with its rivers and deny influence in Afghanistan to Tajikistan, Iran, and India. India does not intend to give up Kashmir for the sake of Pakistan. In order to neutralize Pakistani claims on Indian part of former Princely Kashmir State, it lays claims on Pakistan administered parts of the State – (even though, through accepting the UNCIP’s Ceasefire Resolution of August 13, 1948, and Plebiscite Resolution of January 5, 1949, it recognized Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as outside the sphere of Indian administration to be ruled by Local Authority).In Afghanistan a rather significant part of the population is the ethnic Hazara. They are Shia. Iran proclaims itself as the protector of Shias of theworld. Also there are as many ethnic Tajiks in Afghanistan as in Tajikistan. Pakistan would like Tajikistan to keep its hands off Afghanistan and thereby it shows a proprietary attitude towards Afghanistan. Actually being Shia or Sunni are immaterial factors vis-à-vis perceived national interests of nation states but whenever these tools come handy, they are also deployed. Tajiks are Sunnis. Tajikistan is friendly disposed toward Shia dominated Iran. Moving a little north and there we find Shia dominated Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has a post-Soviet running territorial conflict with Armenia, a Christian majority State, over the perpetual flashpoint of Nagorno Karabakh.
Armenia receives support from Iran (and India and Russia). Here national interest trumps being Shia. Iran suspects separatist tendencies among its Azeri inhabitants – Iran has more than double the number of Azeris than Azerbaijan. A prosperous Azerbaijan might prompt Iranian Azeris to demand independence from Iran and merger with Azerbaijan – (Persian dominated Iran’s perpetual paranoia). Iran would like to see a downtrodden Azerbaijan. Shia majority Azerbaijan receives support from Sunni majority Turkey and Pakistan. Pakistan has cordial relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. They support Pakistan on Kashmir issue. For now Kashmir is a hotly pursued subject in Azerbaijan and Turkey. Turkey is the potential geostrategic corridor that could connect oil rich Caspian Sea region with Europe through Azerbaijan. So it is about oil and gas rather than Shia, or Sunni, or Islam – (in Kashmir it is primarily about the waters of the Indus River System and second about prestige). Iran’s ally Russia wants that oil to go to Europe and beyond through Russian territory under Russian control.
Russia, a traditional rival of Turkey since Ottoman and Tsarist times, suspects Turkey’s hand in the Chechen uprisings against Russia in the Caucasus Mountain region. Chechens are Muslims. But so are Kurds. Turkey is hostile to Kurds because they demand a Kurdish homeland. Yet they are a fragmented people inhabiting Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran. Iran is only 50% Persian. Iranian Persians perpetually suspect separatist and militant tendencies among ethnic minorities, Kurds, Azeris, Baloch.Similarly, Saudi Arabia, self-styled guardian of Sunnis of the world, is paranoid about perceived separatist tendencies among its Shia majority oil rich eastern province of Qatif. It is also fearful of democracy, jihadism, Islamism, Al Jazeera, and the Islamist Ikhwanul-Muslimeen, Muslim Brotherhood (MB). MB has Turkey and Qatar as patrons. Qatar is bloated with gas wealth. It geostrategic aim is to be in the Middle East what America is globally, i.e., the sarpach-khadpanch-arbiter. MB and Al Jazeera are its geostrategic tools. Al Jazeera has a global digital reach. It would criticize everyone except Qatar Government, its paymaster. Russia’s geostrategic aim is to set up a sphere of influence comprising former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, Kazakhstan being the most significant and the largest among them and energy rich besides. Kazakhstan has a huge ethnic Russian-Slav population. Kazakhstan is vulnerable to ethnic tension. Kazakhstan uses China to counter Russian influence. China demands a price to that: that Kazakhstan would look the other way during Chinese crackdowns against Sinkiang/Xinjiang Uighur Muslims – (Pakistan always looks the other way at such times, in its perceived national interest!) – and suppress cross-border Uighur activism. Kazakhstan has a significant Uighur population. Uighurs are ethnically related to Turkey.
Turkey is suspected to have used Uighur exiles as geostrategic assets to wage its proxy war in north Syria (pp.187-191 The War on the Uyghurs Sean R. Roberts). Likewise Iran used Shias from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to fight alongside Hizbullah in Syria (p.151 The Battle for Syria Christopher Phillips). Hizbullah is a non-state Shia militia in Lebanon. Its cadres are geostrategic assets of Iran; so are the Shia Houthi /pr. housi/ cadres of Yemen; so are the Sunni HAMAS cadres of Gaza. Iran supports the Bashar regime in Syria. Syria is Sunni majority with small minorities of Christians, Kurds, Druze, Alawi. Alawis dominate Syria although they are just over 10% of the population. They are not mainstream Shias. Iran’s proxies, in particular the Hizbullah, Afghan, Pakistani, and Iraqi Shias, battled Syrian protesters who wanted political reforms in Syria and resorted to violence when the regime took military action. This paved the way for international jihadists to hijack what was otherwise a local affair. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians got killed and half the population got either internally displaced or emigrated from the country in destitute conditions.Iran’s geostrategic aim is to increase influence in the Middle East and thereby become regional hegemon. Its major external fear is the potential USled, Israeli- and Saudi-supported, regime change in Iran. Hence its hostility to all the three. These three in turn are fearful of Iran’s nuclear programme.
The sum of all the above observations is that all Muslim states, like any other state, pursue their perceived national interest.Since Kashmiri Muslims tend to see things through Islamist spectacles, they fail to see through the games played by Muslim states, often in the name of Islam. In reaction to Kashmiri Muslims, Kashmiri non-Muslims also wear differently coloured eyeglasses. Although their political interests must be the same yet Kashmiris are suspicious of one another. They tend to carry the burden of others’ agendas. Shorn of tinted eyeglasses, they would prefer look inwards and ascertain their own interests.For now, Kashmiris are politically dead. Their political resurgence should happen but on a right trajectory or the history of Kashmir would be repeated.Thus we arrive at the question posed by Professor Siddiq Wahid: “What is to be done now?” To start with there is another question that needs to be answered first: Is there an alternative to the personalized patronage-driven clientelist machine politics of the “mainstream” camp and the Islamist, jihadist, exclusivist, maximalist, rejectionist, reactionary politics of the “separatist” camp? The answer should be, Yes. This alternative would be to pursue programmatic impersonal inclusive democratic public-spirited politics committed to defending political rights of Kashmiris, to establish rule of law, to build industrial infrastructure, and to ensure equitable distribution of resources, pollution free environment, health care, education, electricity, drinking water, housing, roads, so on and so forth.
A rather hard task in a society where only politics understood by the people has been personalistic politics; but not impossible to accomplish. What would be needed would be commitment to political change; and readiness to work hard by way of hashing out a comprehensive political programme, the most essential component of which would be political education of people who have heretofore only heroworshipped demagogues; and to learn and improvise as mid-course difficulties crop up. To start with, Kashmiris would have to give up violence. Kashmiris are a weak party. Weak party should always be careful not to provoke the strong party. Violence on part of Kashmiris would provoke a disproportionate response – remember Palestinians of Gaza, Rohingya of Rakhine, Tamils of Sri Lanka.In early 2009 Sinhala-Buddhist-dominated Sri Lankan Military launched a massive crackdown against Tamil-Hindu-dominated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Tamil Tigers were dreaded fighters and adept at suicide bombings.
While fighting the Tigers, the Lankan Military wiped out, along with Tigers, tens of thousands of innocent Tamil civilians in a matter of less than 5 months. China and Pakistan assisted the Lankan Military with weapons. India looked the other way.In October 2016 the cadres of a small jihadist group of Rakhine State of Myanmar called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) killed 9 armed forces personnel and on August 25, 2017, they killed 11 personnel (p.22 The Rohingya Crisis M. Abdul Bari). This furnished a pretext to the Myanmar Government –and the Government was headed by State Counselor Aung San Su Kyi, Nobel Peace Laureate! – to launch a massive crackdown against the Rohingya Muslims. The Myanmar armed forces, in addition to indulging in rape and arson, killed thousands and expelled hundreds of thousands of Rohingya from their Rakhine homeland.When it comes to the fore as to who or what prompted HAMAS to launch on October 7, 2023, its rocket and land attack against Israel, the agendas pursued by various parties would also become clear. Till then only conspiracy theories would make rounds. As for example: HAMAS launched the strike on Chinese bidding to sabotage the India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor announced during the 2023-Delhi G-20 Summit; or that HAMAS launched the strike on Iran’s (and Russia’s) behest to embroil the US in a Middle East War just as the US had embroiled Russia in Ukraine War; or the strike was a false flag operation masterminded by Benjamin Netanyahu for saving his own skin because for the past six months anti-Netanyahu protests had been on in Israel against his crackdown against judiciary and his massive corruption (that might land him in prison); or that Israeli government wanted to expel Palestinians from Gaza to facilitate the construction of Ben Gurion Canal through Gaza to connect the Red Sea with the Mediterranean as an alternative to Suez Canal.
Whatever the truth, the Israeli response has been extremely disproportionate. Kashmiri Muslims need to give up election boycott philosophy. Election boycott has little logic. It has left Kashmir with little room to manoeuvre. They should participate even in village-panchayat and town-municipality elections. This would ensure a new kind of political training and administrative skills to cadres who would be directly connected to the people. These skills would prove assets for all times to come. By way of preparation for participation in elections Kashmiris should establish a liberal-minded impersonal political organization with a culture of constitutionalism and collective decision making. It should not be like 1986-87 MUF which was a loose, exclusivist, regional confederation of mostly Islamist groups with partisans more loyal to parent organizations than to the MUF. This proposed organization should work within the laid down constitutional system rather than provoking proscription by the establishment. This proposed organization should be proactive. It should lead rather than react to events the way separatist camp reacted to human rights violations by armed forces with shutdown calls and described hartal as evidence that freedom movement was galloping. This new political organization should not be under the domination of one individual and subject to his/her personalistic whims. Personalized approach in politics leads to the party boss gathering a small group, which includes family members, around him-/her-self which group works as a junta, with junta members becoming feudal lords of ministries when such grouping comes to power; and to stifling debate and making of whimsical and unpredictable hasty decisions leading to rapid policy shifts – (in 1975 Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah dumped the 20-year long Plebiscite Movement out of hand; even his most popular decision of abolishing jagirdari, feudal landlordism, in 1950 could be said to be hasty and motivated by personal interest – if he had instead managed to pay compensation to landholders and co-operated with the UN mediator Sir Owen Dixon by resigning his position of Prime Minister to make room for the formal appointment of UN-nominated Plebiscite Administrator, the history of the State would have been different; and when it suited S. A. Geelani he contested elections and when it suited him he boycotted them, the boycott coupled with frequent hartal brought in political stagnation without him ever realizing it despite being warned). In such atmosphere when a political organization gets personalized by some Big Man Political Feudal Lord, strategizing through discussing possible political scenarios (future events) becomes an alien concept – that is what happened in the former Princely J&K State from 1931 right up to 2019.This proposed political organization should encourage a culture of nurturing second rung of committed leaders. And Chairpersons should be periodically elected in open elections for one fixed term. Rules governing the party should be held superior to the person of the Chairperson.
Authority should vest in the office not in the person of the Chairperson. Persons would come and go, institutions only should be invested with supremacy. Even so, there would always be a need to remain vigilant lest a Big Man Political Feudal Lord should emerge and personalize the party. No one should be elected for more than one term. Never should extension be given to the Chairperson’s term on whatever pretext demanded. It should be made a matter of policy not to accept foreign donations. Acceptance of foreign aid would inhibit independent decision-making process. And possession of too much money would attract mercenaries and breed corruption. Instead the proposed organization should rely on contributions from its members and Kashmiris in general. The organization should encourage accountability and transparency. The fact that cadres would be obligated to pay periodic contributions to the party would serve the purpose of keeping mercenary-minded ones away from politics because people mostly join politics in the expectation of gathering largess. This proposed organization should keep membership open to all citizens without discrimination of any sort. Kashmir belongs to all its citizens. Therefore, the organization should belong to all its citizens. This proposed organization should not allow dual membership. That is to say, it should not allow members to sail on two boats like the MUF people andHurriyat people did in Kashmir by keeping one foot in the MUF and later Hurriyat and the other in the parent organization; like Janata Party did in India.Democracy. Democracy is not all about elections only. It has many virtues such as rule of law, equality before law, freedom of thought and expression, independent judiciary, active civil society, independent media and the right of people to elect a government of their choice. However, contrary to common perception democracy does not mean government by common people. It is government by elites. Even if common people vote for a commoner, he/she would cease to be a common person on winning election. He/she would become part of the elite (ruling class).
The elites should be propeople. But what if elected elites prove to be only pro-self not caring a fig about people’s welfare? Democracy has a remedy to offer. It confers common people with the power to “vote with the feet” to throw such elites out of power. Not voting at all would not be the solution. Rather than indulging in emotional outbursts manifested by raising empty slogans on street sides, people should express their feelings through vote. Voting for public service programme of a programmatic political party might be a better alternative. In personalistic clientelist patronage driven political systems voters tend to be transactional. They exchange their vote for money payment, a sports kit for a cricket team, a drug dose if the voter be an addict, a bottle of wine if the voter be a wine-bibber, a promise of protection from police action if the voter be a criminal, all sorts of promises especially promise of a government job, or a government contract – the latter promises seldom kept because these be benefits reserved for clients of party bosses in return for managing election campaigns and mobilizing voters.Transactional voting might entail immediate personal satisfaction but in the long run it causes immense damage to the society – Kashmiris lost their extant political rights and legislative autonomy by indulging in transactional voting (and also by outright boycotting at the behest of “separatist” camp because election boycott furnished walkover to clientelist politicians of the “mainstream”).
All the governments that Kashmiris voted for contributed to the erosion of legislative autonomy of Kashmir – this despite the rhetoric that they would protect autonomy; Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, apparently a champion of autonomy, sponsored, on July 23, Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Second Amendment Order, 1975, barring the J&K Government from replacing the Indian-Presidential-nominee Governor with native-elective Sadar-i-Riyasat through reversing the 1965-amendment to Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir whereby the native-elective head of the state of J&K was replaced by New Delhi’s appointed Governor. What Governors did to J&K State, especially in 1984 and 2019, is history.One more aspect of clientelist machine politics is that voters are driven like cattle by clients of party bosses, sometimes in vehicles, to the polling stations. They are cajoled and/or subtly threatened. Weak for want of proper political education, they tamely succumb.Voting on the basis of biradari – affiliation to caste, tribe, religion – is yet another characteristic of clientelist political systems.
In such systems politically protected crime is rampant, corruption is endemic, and common people are poverty stricken. However, it is their own vote that sustains the system that seldom cares for their welfare.The intellectual class of this proposed political organization would have to educate the voters about proper voting behaviour. It should also evolve a future political vision for Kashmir. Kashmir does not need a revolution. Revolutions, as they say, turn things topsy-turvy, go out of control, and finally eat up their own children. Besides revolutions are prone to get hijacked by extremists. Concurrent to thrashing out a political vision, this organization would REQUEST India, China and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir and LAC issues in a neighbourly spirit. Rather than banking on the support of international community, which is anyway comprised of nation states that pursue their national agendas, Kashmiris should rely on their own resourcefulness and learn to care for themselves. Moreover, the international community is still under the US’ influence. American policy vis-à-vis Pakistan and India is “balancing” between the two, with neither to be able to unilaterally change the status quo, especially on Kashmir.
