Pandits as Mushran Monster, legibly

The root of this state subject agitation was simple, if one wants to get to the root. British changed the educational setup of whole India. It was designed for creating clerical class. In Punjab, these steps were taken about a decade early. So, there were people who needed jobs. Meanwhile, in Kashmir also, similar steps were taken. So a fresh batch of mass graduates was ready. Kashmiri Pandits, the educated among them, ever depended on state jobs, were first to adopt to the new education system, it was easier for them to break religious barriers to pick up foreign languages in duress for survival, they had done it before. Meanwhile, bulk of KM population remained agriculture driven, men in crafts, shawl trade, craft trade, etc…their religious head put in additional the road blocks. While it is easy to be shock the readers with “There was not a single Muslim student among the 300 odd boys in the C.M.S. School.”…someone should shoulder the responsibility of telling the people that this is because the Pandits had lesser issue going to a missionary school while Muslims community even now looks at it with suspicion (why was the school bombed?) Who will tell them that even in the first CMS school in Lahore, in 1849, the first students were KPs? Who will tell them that Samuel Bakkal, a KM convert to christianity, a product of CMS, in 1917 went on to be founder of Mysore Boy Scouts? Who will tell them that in 1912 more Muslims girls from upper cream of the society were reading in the missionary school than Pandit girls because Pandit girls were married off at the age of 13.

Mirwaiz Rasool Shah’s school was reaction to Missionary school just as much of Hindu school of Annie Besant was (which opened later), difference being that those religious trust run schools still teach religious doctrines, while Hindu school does not, and is now in “secular” domain. While Rasool Shah’s school is lauded (right so), the fact that by 30s Maharaja was giving scholarships to Kashmiri Muslims for higher study, is buried away as it is inconvenient in nationalist narrative as devised in the valley.

In 1930 when primary education was made compulsory ( order probably signed incidentally by a KP or a non-Kashmiri, the masses cried about zulum of “Zabri school”/forced school ). In 1911, the first batch of Kashmiri graduates was ready (thanks to efforts of a non-Kashmiri Dr. Mitra introducing English and Punjab syllabus in 1890s) but jobs were going to people from outside (Punjab itself was overflowing with graduates). Thus the agitation of 1912. Without the agitation, decades spent in school as an investment would have been wasted for Kashmiri Pandits. They would have been forced to move out of the state…like it happened post 1947…when they were positively discriminated against. Even in 1970s, Pandits were going to supreme courts and proving how the state was passing discriminatory orders in jobs under the freedom granted by article 370. Poet Dina Nath Nadim, too was impacted by these things when he resigned his teacher post in protest in 60s.

The other communities like Dogras were not nominal in this state subject movement, it was not as if scheming Pandits back then thought “okay let’s include the Dogras too in the agitation so that it all looks good in post-partition era when Dogras would be out of power.” Much against the popular opinion Pandits are not clairvoyant tantric babas who can see future and decide things based on that. At same time the slogan in Jammu was “Jammu for Dogras”. The agitation was about community interests, Pandits identified as Kashmiris.

Drabu causally tells us the shawl-trader princely class, the “cerebral pioneer of the freedom struggle of Kashmir”, opposed the state subject law.
What Drabu does not mention (but does mention without saying) here is that religio/political leadership of Kashmiri Muslims asked (and were granted also in part) that rather the non-Kashmiri Muslims (of Punjab) should be given jobs in the state as the state was Muslim majority. They had no interest in “Kashmir for Kashmiris”, yet (as KPs, Sikhs, etc were still a sizeable part of what was called “Kashmiri” back then. Today, “Kashmiri” the word is used just to imply Muslims by the progenies of these pioneers of Tahreek. And who do they “other” among them?  The Muslims from plains that they asked for.

It should be remembered that by this time, Kashmiri Muslims politics was already directed from the Punjab plains. It was the same for Pandit politics, yet Pandits didn’t ask that Pandits from other parts of India be given jobs (just like right now Pandits didn’t ask for special citizenship rules under UT). For, Pandits of valley, it was a matter of survival in valley, and not some vain agitation over bruised ego. “370” for decades has been sold as an issue about “yazzath”/honor and vague claims of “disenfranchisement”. Drabu’s claim’s “It is tragic because the new domicile law disenfranchises them [Pandits] even more than the Kashmiri Muslims.” This would mean Kashmiri Muslims are also getting disenfranchised. Disenfranchised, how? Can’t they vote? Real question is will they only vote when they are constantly reminded by two-faced communal politicians, “Vote or pandits will vote and put in their men and then you will be ruled by Hindus, again!”?

Factually speaking: State Council in 1891 first recognised inhabitants of state as “State Subject” and their right to jobs. Maharaja would talk about it in court. But, nothing was formalised. This triggered the pandit agitation. It was voiced first in writing in 1894 by Saligram Kaul, in Sialkot.

It must be remembered here that in Glancy Commission, KPs were represented by rationalist, Premnath Bazaz…while the KMs were represented by religious heads and businessmen. Bazaz sided with the KMs. For that Pandits never forgave him. That much is much recounted in Kashmir, but is not remembers that in late 1960s, while in exile in Delhi, Bazaz accepted he was wring, that he gave-in into the obvious communal demands of KM leaders in the commission just because he thought it will create “goodwill” for pandits in the valley. That is all there is to it. Pandits have been trying to gather the currency of “goodwill” for a century now, all while actually losing ground, physically in Kashmir. It was this “goodwill” currency system in which a KP is seen as a good harmless government teacher but an evil bureaucrat ever ready to backstab “Mother Kashmir”.

Drabu claims till KMs were no competition to KPs, the KPs took then along. When muslims became competition for jobs KPs went against them. This claim flies in the face of well known facts.

Fact that KP-KM political unity only came about in late 30s after KMs started having their demands met. After there were communal riots, after “Roti-agitation” (1932). A riot for which Kilam was conveniently blamed, triggering it by a speech. Yet, Kilam (along with Kashyap Bandhu and Prem Nath Bazaz) became one of the building block of what later NC sold as “Kashmiriyat”. That’s how Muslim Conference became National Conference. Bazaz calls it golden era of unity.

But it was Sheikhs’ recourse to communalism post 47 that put an end to it. One can rather claim that KPs were taken for a ride. Their support sought when it was needed, when it was needed to be in good books of Congress and progressives. In the “Naya Kashmir” manifesto a seat was reserved for a KP representative in the assembly. What happened of it? Post independence, KPs, a dispersed minority were actually disenfranchised. Even in areas where they were in majority, delimitation was carefully done to keep them out.  Drabu is taking names of KPs, long dead KPs, without knowing much about them. In 1950, J. L. K. Jalali  (a man who in 1920s waged lone campaign against grain hoarder and black marketers ) wrote about the brutal realities of “Naya Kashmir” and the dangerous form of Nationalism sold by NC to masses, at the core of which was the theory of “evil KP”:

“I am a Kashmiri to whom Kashmir has always been the dearest of treasures, and suffered for it. To me the nationalism of today is nothing a garbled version of majority communalism directed towards a definite end.”

Telling tales of evil pandits used to a hobby in Kashmir, now it seems to be a profession, particularly of former bureaucrats, courted by center from time to time. There is no other reason why someone, who lives in a community where crackers are burst after terror attacks, would rather than writing about it, would tell those crackers how fanatic Pandits were distributing sweets on abrogation of a law. All these are nothing but attempts to save their own skin but blaming the eternal pandit for all the invisible webs they themselves have woven.

For this class Bazaaz was to write:

“Was the special status and autonomy conferred on the State under Article 370 to pave way for integration of Kashmir with the rest of India by assuring State people of their political, social and cultural freedom or was it meant to allow the State politicians, especially Kashmir Muslim leaders, untrammelled opportunity for exploitation of the ignorant, gullible and backward massed? It was a moot point which probably never occurred to stalwarts of the Congress party in early days of independence when they evinced fullest confidence in the honesty, sincerity and love for teeming millions of National Conference leadership. Capture and enjoyment of power brought an awareness to the favorite leaders that the integration of the State with India, however desirable, was antagonistic to their private interest; no sooner than the objective was achieved, their own importance would cease and opinion of State people would grow in importance and weight.

Therefore, to keep people in darkness and not to make them politically conscious and socially awakened became a vested interest of Kashmir politicians. A policy was evolved to make Kashmir Muslims feel perpetually in terror of the hostile Hindu majority and depend upon the local coreligionist leaders for protection against it. Article 370 was frequently maligned and abused, and conditions were created not to allow it to outgrow its utility as originally intended but to make it a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution. In this atmosphere while the leaders thrived, the position of average Kashmiri worsened. The Central leadership of the Congress was caught in a web woven by the National Conference leaders before they could realize what was happening.”

It was again Bazaaz who wrote what the actual cost of KM secessionism would be, or rather the cost of communal majoritarian KM politics, which community will first bear the actual cost of it and how KPs will and must respond.

“There can be no manner of doubt that a majority of Muslims is obsessed with the desire that Kashmir should accede to Pakistan. If that aim is achieved it is obvious Pandits will have to leave their hearth and home and become refugees in India. If there was any doubt about it the Azad Kashmir Radio and, inspired by it, a by-no-means mute section of Muslims has been constantly warning Pandits that the Valley is bound to join Pakistan so they should take time by forelock and be ready to depart. What alternative do these threatenings leave to Pandits but to determinedly oppose the demand and tenaciously fight back with all resources available to them. It becomes the foremost duty of even the liberal minded Pandit democrat to defeat the Muslim purpose ; for self-effacement is no part of the philosophy of liberalism or democracy. Muslim politicians shall have to propose a solution which should be acceptable to the non-Muslims. It is well to remember that the Indian subcontinent was partitioned because the minority wanted it so. Had the issue been left to the vote of the majority (right of self-determination) the unity of the subcontinent would have been maintained. As long as the Muslims insist upon the right of secession Pandits will be morally right and politically justified in opposing the demand. This may appear unreasonable to the Muslim politicians but they will ignore it at their own cost.”

A reminder: 98% of Pandits today live in places (all over the world) where there are “immigrant” yet equal citizens. It comes from present. The world as it is. Not as it was. The progenies of Kaul, Kilam, Jalali, Bazaz are all outside Kashmir. Probably as divergent in their individual political stands at their ancestors were. But, they are all outside. There was there becomes of decades and decades of “othering”.

While Sanatan Sabha, Aryan Sabha hold no sway over Pandits today, the KMs still rally under new Ashais (who cozy upto Imran Khan now) and Mirwaizs…while politicians like Drabu try to stay relevant in that same eco system (as some sort of rational voice) by deploying three hundred year old terms like “Karkun Bhatte” and “Bhasha Bhatte” in front of a young muslim audience in valley who hasn’t lived next to a Bhatta in three decades, their minds getting used to the shape of Pandit Mushran, which they now know comes in these two medieval flavors.

-0-

In Kashmiri folktables “mushran” was an evil spirit that came in the shape of a dirty old man and will a parental hug, suck your soul, cause slow death.