Tag: The Eternal Pandit

Posted on

Devi Angan Conundrum

 Hari Parbat Hill Map, Drawn on a Shawl, 1850s.

Information that is easily available online:

In 1930s post-communal violence, Kashmiri Pandits laid claim on whole Hari Parbat (land around it was called “Devi Angan”) as their religious site. The claim was rejected by Glancy Commission even though they accepted it as Hindu land. The process was thought to be too inconvenient for majority community and prone to raise communal tension.

Info. not often mentioned (however recalled by poet Zareef Ahmed Zareef):

Decades later (in 60s-70s, exact date not known) Jia Lal Nagri associated with the temple came up with a plan to distribute (retained trunctated) empty “Devi Angan” land around the temple among needy people. According to the plan if 10 plots were carved out of the land, the distribution was to be in this proportion: 2 were to be given to a Muslim, 1 to a Pandit, every 6th to a Sikh.

Continue reading “Devi Angan Conundrum”

Posted on

Pandit Bazaz the Iblis

If we know one thing about how ethnic cleansing is possible, it is that first intellectual arguments for defining them as perpetual “problem” is done. It needs creation of an amoral society in which killing of the “other” can be legitimised. In India, if we have Congress, Communists, Socialist etc that have done lot of work countering attempts to delegitimise Muslim existence in India, in case of Kashmir, it was National Conference that laid the foundation of systematic hated for Pandits. It was not work of religious parties in Kashmir, they joined in later, it was work of ultranationalists in Kashmir who needed a perpetual enemy they could blame for all that was wrong in Kashmir.
By 1989, the ground had already been prepared to cast Kashmiri Pandits as the eternal enemy of Kashmiri Muslims. No matter what politics they pursued – communist, socialist, ultranationalist, democrat – they were marked people. To illustrate it we can see how Prem Nath Bazaz, the man that certain Tahreekis still love to quote, was perceived in the “intellectual” circles of Kashmiri Ultranationalists.

Continue reading “Pandit Bazaz the Iblis”

Posted on

Copland mistake and fallout

More on the malicious propaganda and lies against Kashmiri Pandits produced in elite Indian universities. Or rather the mediocrity of the work peddled out on the subject. Above is an extract from a paper titled “The Caste of Migrants: Affirmative Action and the Case of Kashmiri Pandits” (2018) by Pushpendra Johar, Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi. The paper sets out to prove how “reservations” for “Kashmiri Migrants” are against the notion of reservation laid out on India constitution and such. How does the paper go about it? By talking about KP supposed affluence and influence hundred years ago. And even here, to make the argument, the paper relies on secondary sources that themselves are part of deliberate lies. Where it cannot lie, it just creates a smoke screen in which reader is unable to read the data without bias. For the above passage it relies on “Islam and Political Mobilization in Kashmir, 1931-34, Ian Copland (1981). Copland is much cited in such studies and now considered an authority. As we shall see, it has flaws. A flaw an outsider can easily or deliberately make, and no one will question it as ‘KPs as exploiters of Kashmir” is a settled theme in public discourse on Kashmir.  

The paper by DU guy claims 78% gazetted post were held by Hindus and Sikhs. Then in next line, instead of Hindus, he mentions Kashmiri Pandits, to imply this 78% was Kashmiri Pandits and Sikh that held “all the job”. The writer makes the basic mistake of assuming that all Hindus in the state were KPs. 

Fact:
In 1931, according to census data, there were 13133 total people in Public Administration and 12265 in State service

According to census, for every 1000 employees in State Service, about 305.9 were KP men and for every 100 woman employees in State Service, only 1 Female was KP woman. Overall, we can say 70% of State service comprised of other communities.

Next, quoting Copland, he makes the oft repeated claim that in 1931: “in Mirpur tehsil 94 % patwaris were Kashmiri Brahmin”. Ian Copland indeed mentions it, and this claim has found its way into many scholarly works including the “Hindu rulers, Muslim subjects” by Mridu Rai (2004), a work much loved by Tahreekis for providing them the excuse for their violence on minorities of the state and for claiming the whole J&K as a Muslim territory. Copland mentions his source as “Report by Major General R.G. Finlayson on the visit of Inspection and Enquiry into Mirpur Tehsil” (1932). The “secret” report was result of riots of January 1932 in Mirpur in which Muslim majority killed and displaced the Hindu and Sikh minority. There were “Jathas” moving in from Punjab, hearing rumors about the scale of killings, they were rushing to kill Muslims. The situation was brought under control, but migration did happen. The British believed economic grievances to be the real reason for communal flare-up. Copland forwards the same argument. All fine. But, what are Kashmiri Pandits doing there in the quote of Copland? Were 94% patwaris in Mirpur tehsil Kashmiri Pandits or Kashmiri Hindus?

No. 

The actual wording of Finlayson in the report (attached) mentions just “Hindus” and not Kashmiri Pandits. 

Posted on

Pandits as Oil Wells

 Wajahat Habibullah
in HT interview Jan 17, 2020 

 

This is how propaganda factory has been “handling” Kashmiri pandit tragedy. He is asked about events of 90 instead he talks vaguely about 25-35% government jobs being held by KPs. Ask him when? What time is he talking about? Pre- 1940s? How is it relevant to events of 90. How will a lay reader understand this contextless number? Reader will understand it the only way the speaker wants them to: that in 1990 KPs were holding 30% jobs (trigger “exploitative”, autosuggest: see the killings in that light). Which of course is a lie. In 1990 out of total 2 Lakh + state employees only about 12 thousand were KPs. So, this begs the question why such discussion on KPs start in certain circles with this lie. To understand how potent this propaganda is, we have the famous case of Barkha Dutt also using the exact same approach to KPs in a TV report few years ago. What kind of an echo chamber has been created?

To understand that, we reach the end of Habibullah’s piece. So high are they on their own drug, that they think since KPs were in government service since a hundred years, by now they have become Jeff Bezos, and that to be citizen of Kashmir, KPs need to prove their utilitarian benifits, and they be given those special Visas that western nations have for super rich. Basically, if Kashmir is a dirty rug, KPs have to be Nirma super. And not just stop there, they have to setup factory of Nirma detergent.

There is a theory why ethnic cleansing become possible. The root of it is an amoral society*. In such a society those at the top start seeing a group as something other than people. In some uncivilized places people think of “others” as parasites, in civilized Kashmir, KPs are seen as just enemy agents since the time of Mughals. The absurd, the amoral, is so normal that the solution to KP issue is presented as telling people that KPs  are actually oil wells so missed in Kashmir. Thus often such articles tell you benifit of KPs, that they can do wonder for education sector on Kashmir, that they are good doctors, or engineers etc, they can bring “normalcy”. As if Majority in valley has to be convinced that KPs is the missing brick from his broken house wall. We are no bricks, we are people. Even the most useless, vile, poor, pathetic of KPs don’t deserve to have to play this 25-30% game for next 30 years, and then try and “buy” their way back into Kashmir. We are talking about people who have nothing to show as “inheritance” (ironically communist in that aspect) and these babulog are telling majority in valley that KPs should move their oil mills to Kashmir. As what…collateral? Houses of most KPs are already lost collateral. Investment that our grandparent and parent generation made.

What has any of it got to do with right of KPs to exist in Kashmir on their own terms. Even the most useless Kashmiri Pandit does not seize to be a Kashmiri just because he is useless. Even a prisoner does not lose his citizenship just because he is a prisoner. 

Why feed such amoral nonsense to people?

-0-

Posted on

Pandits as Mushran Monster, legibly

 

This is in response to “Pandits as pariah, legally” by Haseeb Drabu, in Greater Kashmir, April 30, 2020.

Drabu’s piece rests on careful omission of facts and deliberate inclusion of usual bile. The only legible thing in the write-up is the use of word “pariah” in the title, a “persona non grata”…an outcaste…a person who the society eats up and then vomits outside the boundaries…then walls are built to keep them out. Often these walls are perfectly sounding arguments built on solid gleaming bricks of history. And to keep the people inside the wall happy, unquestioning, the tale of “Pandit” monster who has been hounding poor mazloom Kashmiri Muslims from five hundred years ago, is graphically remembered.

 

Drabu’s excuse for writing all this: a patronizing “concern” for the wily Kashmiri Pandits, that he now assumes is somehow is not smart enough. That the “smart” community was celebrating a law that was unfair to them. He is not bewildered by it. Because, the reader gets it, if it is bad for them and they are still celebrating, either they are dumb or pure evil. Gist of what already the masses in Kashmir have been sold in the valley till now. Drabu, is making it all the more clear for them.

But, is it true?

 

 

All these years, in all discussions on KP exodus matters, the population of KPs impacted by the secessionist movement, “the migrants” has been measured only by numbers of registered migrant families (there was no individual count). The rule change means nothing to them. They are all accounted. They are the bulk. As for those not registered as migrants…something as election cards, rev. records etc. can be considered. Already something like this is done by Relief Commissioner for former government employees who never registered. As for others, KPs who left in 40s/50s/60s….they didn’t even have a chance in previous Kashmir fiefdom setup …now if they wish they can take the normal root in new law. And they don’t need to worry who is married where and to whom. All they need is peace, which of course is another matter and subject to guns of Pakistan.

The concern for KPs shown by Drabu is just a ruse to show to show how KPs are somehow in intellectual pits now.

 

He should remember that Kashmiri Pandits raised the slogan of “Kashmir for Kashmiris”…not “Kashmir for Kashmiri Pandits”…the present violent mess in the state if because of “Kashmir Banega Pakistan”, but you can’t talk about it, you be deemed “occupier”/”collaborator” and once you are deemed that, all you can do to redeem yourself is remind the people of Pandit monster.  You can compare the present generation to Pandit Shankar Lal Kaul, Jia lal Kilam and J.L. Jalali, but it should be remembered that these leaders also walked away from Shiekh Abdullah’s brand of Kashmiriyat Kashmiri Nationalism as formulated by Sheikh is based on what Orwell called “Negative Nationalism”…it didn’t know what it was…until it starts defining what it was against. It is nothing without the “Other”. Thus we see it defining itself in beginning as “against landlords”…and eventually morphing into “against pandits” or rather they now proudly say in Kashmir against “certain kind of” pandits, “rest are welcome”. Of course, overtime and scenarios the “kind” they are against keeps changing and “they” get to define who they are against whenever they take shelter under nationalism. Not surprisingly no Kashmiri Muslim public intellectual is ready to be “anti-national” to The Cause, great Cause, which is like a shifting goal post based on the political position, physically, the intellectual takes in the power.

When an Kashmiri intellectual is shifting post, one of the clear sign of it is that he will start talking about the history of Dhars, Kouls etc in the valley. It is a tradition coming down from Shiekh himself. It was under him that KPs were shaped as the perfect enemy. It is under his that narratives were created.

The whole idea that KPs as a community were somehow educated elites is itself coloured reading of history. Fact is, according to 1921 census of Kashmir:

73.21 % of KPs were illiterate. That should puncture the myth (that even KPs like to boast): KPs were highly educated class. The edge of education was only with the 9.36% English literate KPs among a total KP population of 55055. That’s just 5,154 individuals. To compare: There were 5231 educated KMs in the state with their population of 796392. Of them about 340 knew English.

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!”?

What is the charge on Pandit monster? That in 1917, ever selfish Kashmiri Pandits raised the slogan when it suited them. If so, didn’t the KM leadership also make their choice based on what was convenient to them at the time? If Ashai’s word of “non-mulki” Muslims might be more sympathetic to their plight seems fair, then by same logic if Pandits today claim “non-mulkis” from the plains might be more sympathetic to their plight than the “mulki” KM bureaucracy, why the hue and cry?

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.

Saligram was brother of Hargogal Kaul, the man who started Sanatan Dharam Sabha. Hargogal Kaul was a man born and brought up in Punjab in a KP family that had settled there in earlier times of persecution. A “non-mulki” as much as a Nehru. Hargogal arrived in state around 1876. He was quickly branded a British agent and rumor started that he had drowned some KMs in a boat. He was a fierce critic of the Maharaja and was even banished from the state for some years. He was charged by Wahabi leader Yahya Shah of hurting religious sentiments of muslims in around 1898. Bazaz’s clearly mentions “Kashmir for Kashmiris” started in 1920s. Slogan was coined by Shankerlal Koul. If Drabu has based him opinion based on “Emergence of political awakening in Kashmir” (1986) by Upendra Kishen Zutshi (incidentally a KP ), he already knows all this.

In 1907, KM representatives while asking for education funds for Islamia school were writing to Maharaja thanking him for protecting them from Arya Samajis , the evil brains behind Congress whose main agenda is Hindustan for Hindus. Sounds familiar?

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.
Posted on

Prem Nath Bazaz on Muslim Communalism, 1967


In the aftermath of Parmeshwari Handoo case of 1967, Prem Nath Bazaz went on to write an essay titled “Kashmiri pandit agitation and its Aftermath”. In it he exlained what lead to communal flare-up in the valley. He blamed Jan Sangh affliated Pandits for fanning the issue and generally suggested that KPs should try and play a contructive role in Kashmir, be more liberal so that Kashmiri Muslims may mirror it and try and be more liberal. The piece is often selectively quoted as proof of KP fanatism, however, in the same piece Bazaz tells us the root of the issue, how Muslim communalism was working in the valley and how Pakistan was fanning it.

“In 1947 at the time of partition which was accompanied
by inhuman deeds on a large scale in North and East India
the communal harmony was put to a heavy strain but the
Valley people rose to the occasion and successfully withstood
the wave of frenzy from outside ; the culture of the Valley
and its old traditions were heroically preserved. Other
occasions arose during the last twenty years when the people
had to pass through more severe ordeals but they did not
flinch or waver in maintaining their balance.

 That after 33 years of continued harmony the fires of
fanaticism were alighted afresh last August by Pandit
demagogues no impartial observer can deny. But while making
an objective appraisal of the unfortunate episode it would be
fair to point out that Muslims are not free from blame in
bringing about this situation.

 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.”

-0-

P.S. In 1968, in the aftermath of 67 riots, my grandfather was convinced by his brothers to purchase a piece of land in Jammu. In 1990 after reaching Jammu, we found some of the land encroached (we let them be), and some part of the land missing, soil dug out and sold. In 1996, we managed to build four rooms over the remaining plot after spending a year, breaking savings and saving money. A few years later around 1998, the ancestral Kashmir house was sold to build four more rooms. Pandits, even Bazazs of the world, knew what was in store for Pandit community. Death or exile. 67 was the last time they put up a fight on the physical ground, in the streets. It also sealed their fate, Tahreek knew Pandits had to be removed from the equation.

-0-

Previously: Pandit Prem Nath Bazaz on Article 370

Posted on

Pt. Rughonath Vaishnavi and a dead Temple. 1960

Remains of Bhairav temple Chattabal
2009. Pic: Autar Mota

In 1951, the Food Control Department of Jammu and Kashmir State encroached upon and occupied the Bathing Ghat and other premises of Bhairav temple Chattabal. They started using the place for distributing rations. The temple was desecrated. I grew up hearing stories of the desecration. But, I assumed may be post 1990, my family was exaggerating. My family comes from the area, my grandfather used to take me to the Ghat and show me the lock on the temple and the ruins. I was eight. Over the decades my grandfather saw the temple of his ancestors desecrated multiple times, in 1973 a mob threw chappals into the Hawan kund and in 2008 we saw a glimpse of the burnt remains of the temple. He was eighty. I wrote about it. The story was still not clear to me.

I recently came across postscript to the story in a small footnote in the book “Crisis in Kashmir”(1991) by Pyarelal Kaul (who was with Praja Socialist Party).


“That Shri Bhokhatiashwar Bhairov Nath Asthapan, Chattabal, Srinagar is and continues to be, an ancient, holy shrine of the Hindus — That the said Asthapan Ghat is and has been with the Hindu Community in general, always used by the Hindus of Chattabal in particular, for the observance of religious rites and worship such as daily Sandhya, Kriya Karam, Shradhas, etc., for hundreds of years past. —
That the entire compound of the said shrine has been reduced to a public market place by the said illegal and unlawful encroachment by use and occupation of the said Bathing Ghat and other premises of the said shrine with night soil, urine, filth and rubbish of every kind.”

Notice dated April 2, 1960 under section 80 CPC to the Chief Secretary of State for removal of encroachment and payment of damages. The advocate for Pandits was Pt. Rughonath Vaishnavi, the man who Tahreeki propagandists now like to market as “Pakistani Pandit” ignoring the fact that during Bangladesh war he was one of the men who supported liberation of Bangladesh.

Why did Pandits chose Vaishnavi as a representative?

It is true, Vaishnavi was a man with political opinions and stood by his ideology. He believed in democracy. Resolution through non-violent means. Even if it all meant Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan. But, as this notice shows, he was concerned about what was happening to his community. It was something that concerned him directly. He was physically living in Kashmir. So, the meaning of it was clear to him. Perhaps he saw this act as an extension of Muslim ultra-nationalistic tendencies being fanned in the valley for all kind of political gains. Today, most KPs who remember the destruction of this temple, blame the ghat boatmen Hanjis, people of nearby locality Nalbandpora, which was hotbed of Plebiscite front politics (which back them was just another front for getting NC back in power) for the desecration of the temple with the motive of usurping the temple land. Few remember the politics behind it. 

This act of Vaishnavi  sets him apart from the new age “Pakistani Bhattas and Bhattanis” of present generation who are incapable of doing the same, [among them is Vaishnavi’s grand-daughter  Mona Bhan]. All they can do is push stories of “Kashmiri Muslims performing last rite of Kashmiri pandit” and then while living outside Kashmir write about dead pandits who loved Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. They can sell fear of Hindu India and at the same time sell the idea of peace with Muslim theoretic state of Pakistan and a Sharia compliant paradise Kashmir. Forgetting that from Bazaz to Vaishnavi, all of them have written about obvious growing religious fanaticism of Pakistan. It is they who are also enablers of the environment today in which a pandit writing a petition about desecration of a Hindu temple in Kashmir would be labeled “Sanghi Batta”. Vaishnavi today would have been labeled Sanghi Batta out to demonize Kashmiri Muslims. No matter what they say or write the true meaning of these events cannot be changed for the victims. The temple is dead.

It was this dispute from 1950s that foretold that my family would be forced to leave their ancestral place someday. In late 60s, some of the families from our extended clan started leaving the place. Some moved to Delhi and some to other localities. My grandfather stayed on but he did purchase a piece of land in Jammu in late 60s after selling a piece of land in Chattabal near Lakad Mandi. All of them knew what was coming, they didn’t know the date. All of them were preparing for the inevitable.

-0-

Video Link

Posted on

Jagannath Sathu on Plight of Pandits, 1952

KP farmer women.
1895

Jagannath Sathu was a radical humanist inspired by thoughts of M.N. Roy. He organized Kissan Mazdoor Conference and later was vice-president of KDU (Kashmir Democratic Union), the first Pro-Pakistan political party of the state. Along with Pandit Prem Nath Bazaz he was one of the few Pandits who challenged Sheikh Abdullah reign by backing Pakistan. In 1950s, he was exiled to Delhi along with Bazaz by Sheikh. He was also one of the first Kashmiri to be rounded by police on terror charges in Delhi. He was devotedly anti-communist (his piece on “Red-Menace” is rather famous in academic circles) since communists kept changing the horse they were backing in the conflict. 

Here’s an extract from 1952 pamphlet published by Sathu on “Plight of Minorities” in Kashmir, about the pandits he writes:

Pandits Suppressed Everywhere

Kashmiri Pandits are as a community an intellectual class in the State. For centuries, may be thousands of years, they have led the Kashmiri masses in education and culture. By dint of their efficiency, faithfullness and diligence they have manned the administrative machinery of the State under the successive rules of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Mughals, Pathans, Sikhs and Dogras. But now for the first time under the secularism of the Kashmir nationalists, they were told that these qualities were of no use or value and it was the brute majority of the numbers that counted. Therefore not only were State Services refused to Kashmiri Pandits even when they were better qualified for these than the Muslims related to or acquainted with the nationalist leaders who were appointed; the Pandits already in Service were also superseded by their subordinates far junior to them in class and grade and inferior to them in academic qualifications. It becomes very poignant for a Pandit official to wok under an inefficient, less qualified, uninformed and inexperienced subordinate who promoted to a responsible job inly because he is muslim favoured by the nationalists. In many cases employees twenty or thirty steps junior have been pushed to the top.
Thus jobbery and favouritism is not confined to the sphere of Government services. It is applied everywhere. Government contracts in P.W.D., Forest, Panchayat, Revenue and other departments are also given to their own men by the nationalists. Relatives and friends of Ministers get the lion’s share. The dealers appointed by the Government to sell rationed goods are the favourites of the ruling clique. This also adversely affected the economic condition of the Kashmiri Pandits.
The agrarian reforms and the way they have been implemented by the Abdullah Government have hit the Kashmiri Pandits hard. We shall have to say a lot about these reforms at its proper place but here we would like to discuss their repercussions on the social life of the Pandits. More than thirty percent of the lands in the valley belonged to this community. A very insignificant fraction of the lands was bestowed upon the few members of the community as jagirs by the past rulers for some loyal services rendered. Most of the land in their possession was secured by Pandits either at the time of the first settlement of the land seven decades ago when not many people were coming forward to take the responsibility. of developing the barren regions of the valley. Land was then considered a great liability and only industrious people with some capital to invest could have land as a business proposition. A large slice of this land was also purchased by the Pandits after 1934 when propriety rights were granted to Kashmiris. Before that year the Maharaja was recognised, in law, as the sole proprietor of land in the valley. Pandits purchased agricultural land with their hard earned money in hope that it would yield good return to maintain them. When the agrarian reforms were introduced thousands of Kashmiri Pandits whose only source of income was land were thrown on the streets.
According to the Big Estates Abolition Act every landlord has the right to keep 182 Kanals of his land. But the nationalist leaders and workers have been touring far and wide in the valley advising Muslim peasants not to give any share of the produce to the Pandit landlords. When the guardians of Law and Order are themselves interested in preaching the defiance of law what redressal can be available to the poor Pandit. Thus the Act has practically taken away the whole land without compensation from the Pandits irrespective of their economic condition.

No remedy but exodus

With doors of Government services virtually closed on them; with government contracts almost totally denied to them; with trade and commerce in a chaotic condition in the State; with land snatched away from them; and above all, with insecurity and uncertainty all round in their home land, if Kashmiri Pandits found the demons of starvation, death and disrespect staring them in their face there in no wonder in it. Time and time again they approached the eminent Kashmiri Pandits such as Sapru, Kunzru, Katju in India, they even waited upon Sardar Patel, with their bucketful of woes. But evidently no body could help them so long as the Kashmiri Pandit Prime Minister of India was adamant on his policy about Kashmir. Having felt convinced that they could expect no sympathy from high political quarters at New Delhi and the unlimited power of the Kashmiri nationalists was in no way to be curtailed, having also realized that there could be no end to the abnormal conditions so long as the dispute over the accession issue between Indian and Pakistan continued Kashmiri Pandits decided to leave their motherland for good. What a wrench it must be to a Pandit to bid goodbye to his country of birth it is not difficult to imagine. Already about 20,000 Pandits, men, women, and children have come out and settled in different parts of India. If the present conditions continue for some time more there should be no doubt that the remaining members of the community will also leave their hearths and homes and they valley will be completely denuded of the Hindus.
From their bitter experience of the nationalist politics during the last two decades particularly since October 1947, the Kashmiri Pandits consider it quite risky and dangerous to remain in the valley; they are afraid of a flare up which might develop into a big conflagration, envelop the small microscopic minority, and reduce it to ashes. 

It is interesting that even such a partisan person, a pro-Pak person could back in 50s, could ( and indeed did) articulate Pandit concerns, their plight so clearly. Something the younger generation of Pro-Pak KPs, are now incapable of expressing publicly. The piece also makes it clear how Pandits came to acquire land post 1934. 

-0-

Posted on

Census Numbers of Kashmiri Pandits, 1921-1931

Date to refute the propaganda that perpetuates the myth that Kashmiri Pandits were elite exploitative class of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Year 1921


Total KP population: 55055
30947 Male +24108 Female

Working Male: 17919
Working Female: 1389
Dependents: 35744





People whose primary means of income was cultivation:

Male: 4376
Female: 731

People who worked as Agents/Managers/Forest officers, their clerks, rent collectors:
Male: 294

Field Labourers/Woodcutters:

Male: 2

Herders/Milkmen/Livestock:


Male: 4

Artisan and other workmen:


Male: 272
Female: 339

Transport Owner/Manager:


Male: 10

Labourer/boatmen/palki carrier:

Male: 68

Traders:


Male: 2070
Female: 12

People whose Principal means of income was State Service:

Male: 3844
Female: 31

People who had State job as a means of additional income:


Male: 481
Female: 1

People who had some other means of income on top of State job:

Male: 208
Female:5

People holding Religious Posts:


Male: 74

Lawyer/Doctor/Teacher:


Male: 57

Other Jobs:


Male: 129
Female: 1

Living on their incomes from the funds:


Male: 98
Female: 4

Employed in Domestic service:


Male: 1742
Female: 46

Contractors/Clerks/ Cashiers:


Male: 51

Labourers:
Male: 47
Female: 4

Beggars/Criminals/in jail


Male: 80
Female: 3

People who earned from Land:


Male: 1025
Female: 214

Commissioned Gazetted Officer in Public Force:


Male: 1

Gazetted Officer in Public Administration:Male: 6

Other Public Administration:


Male: 2970
Female: 3
Literacy rates


Total KP population: 55055

Total Literate: 14,740
of them 14456 Male and 284 Female

Total Illiterate: 40,303
of them 16, 479 Male and Female 23824.

Literate in English: 5,154.
of them 5104 Male and 50 Female

That means 73.21 % of KPs were illiterate (53% of Males were illiterate).  That should puncture the myth (that even KPs like to boast): KPs were highly educated class.

However, the edge was only with the 9.36% English literate KPs among 55055 and 34.97 % among the KP literates. No other community had more number in this category.

To compare: There were only 5231 educated KMs in the state with their population of 796392. Of them only 340 knew English and among them only 5 woman knew English.

Things were to change from KPs and KMs in the next decade.

Year 1931

In 1931, Kashmiri Pandit population increased by 14.6 percent. Though it might sound high. The total increase in number was only 8056. From 55055 it moved to 63088. Number of educated people among KPs increased by 31.9 percent. 

It is claimed in myths that KMs were deliberately kept uneducated by the Maharaja (and some even claim by KPs), however, the reason for illiteracy among Muslims is explained in the 1931 report:
“The backwardness of Muslims is the result of their concentration on the soils which does not permit the agriculturist to devote sufficient time and energy for his personal education or the education of his children.”
Yet, efforts were made to get them educated. In the State, the number of schools doubled from 670 in 1921 to 1246 in 1931. [Shri Pratap College, Srinagar gave Rs 1500 scholarship for Muslims and Prince of Wales College, Jammu gave Rs 3000.]
The census report says on the progress among KMs.
“The community that has evinced the keenest interest in augmenting its ranks of literates in beyond doubt the Kashmiri Muslim. In population they have added only 70 persons to 100 of their strength but in literacy they have more than quadrupled the number. “
Their population increased by 69.7 % (this drastic increase partly because “Hajjams” started entering Kashmiri Muslim as their caste) to 1352822 from 796392. The number of literate increased by 313.4 percent. 
According to the report:
“When we look to absolute figures only without reference to the population of each caste the Kashmiri Muslims show the highest number of literates viz. 21,639, followed by Kashmiri Pandits with 18,915“
In 1921 there were only 5231 literate KMs while in 1931 the number grew to 18,915, the biggest absolute number in the state, 
In 1921 there were only 5 English literate KMs per 10000 of their population. In 1931, the number became 25. That’s an increase of 20%.
Yet, in case of Srinagar city (whose population increased by 22.5 % from 1921 to 1931) we read:


“The total number of literates in the city of Srinagar is 17,575 out of which 16,480 are males and 1,095 females. The proportion of literates per mille [1000] of the total population of the city is 101 being 174 for males and 14 for females. If we exclude population below 5 the proportions would rise to 117 for persons, 198 for males and 16 for females. Amongst Hindus, the proportion of literates works out to 344 while amongst Muslims it dwindles down to 39. The obvious reason is that the Hindus in the city are mostly Kashmiri Pandits or outsiders attracted by the prospects of trade to whom literacy is the one thing needful for conducting their business. The Kashmiri Pandits as already stated have a very high degree of literacy because of the traditions amongst them of following Government service as their calling in life. The Muslims on the other hand are devoted to indigenous arts and crafts which though more paying do not demand literacy as a pre-requisite.”
The KPs still had the advantage in English in the entire state. For KPs there was an increase of 50 percent.  From 1045 per 10000 in 1921 it grew to 1588 in 1931. 
The report records: “The Kashmiri Pandits hold an enviable position in the State in the matter of English literacy having 1588 literates per 10000 of the population. Their males have a much higher proportion viz 2, 789. The Kashmiri Pandit is by tradition a Government servant for which the requisite equipment is a knowledge of the English language to which he has turned in a greater measure than any other caste.”
Still, for every 1000 KP men 635 were literates and 365 illiterates. Over all the number stood at 369 per 1000. Other communities were of course worse than KPs, but Khatris (386/1000) were better than KPs in literary. Even in the field of female literacy they were better place. They had 178 literate females per thousand compared to (24 for KPs, 22 for Sheikhs , 21 for Brahmins, 1 for Kashmiri Muslims)
Now, let’s see what did this “tradition of Government service ” for KPs meant in numbers.
In 1931, there were 13133 total people in Public Administration and 12265 in State service
According to census, for every 1000 employees in State Service, about 305.9 were KP men and for every 100 woman employees in State Service, only 1 Female was KP woman. Overall, we can say 70% of State service comprised of other communities. 
This is the complete breakdown for KPs.
For every 1000 people employed in these fields, following were KPs:

State Service: 

305.9

Exploitation of animals and vegetation :

287.9
Industry: 
18.6

Transport 
4.8
 
Trade 
149.9

Public Force 
19.0
Public Administration 
1.5
Arts and Professions 
73.2

Persons living on their income 
20.1 

Domestic service 
98.7 

Insufficiently described occupations 
27.7 

Beggars, criminals and inmates of Jails
 2.7
The report noticed, “The Kashmiri Pandits are gradually relinquishing their ideal of Government service and turning to trade and even manual labour in increasing numbers.”
Then there is the question of unemployment. If KPs were spending so much effort getting education. was it rewarding? 
“The unemployed who possess a higher qualification than that of a matric are 289 only exclusive of 73 unemployed who are below 20 years of age. Of these 226 are Brahmans and 26 other Hindus. The Muslims number 37 only. It is very much in the fitness of things that the Brahman who inherits traditions of learning from the past should be most exposed to the uncertainty of employment. The Muslims and others who have a stake in the land naturally do not take to education keenly especially when the education provided in schools and colleges is of a purely literary nature and does not enable the bookish student to pursue any calling except that of a clerk in Government service without further training.”
This provides the backdrop form Roti agitation that city KPs launched in 1932 in response to Glancy commission that among other things sought to lower the requirement for Government jobs. This would have mean all the decade that KPs spent preparing for government job would have been wasted. KMs who by number were already most populous literate group with 21,639 would have been rightly seen as a threat by18,915 literate Kashmiri Pandits. It must have dawned on KPs that their future is at stake. 21,639 was a negligible number given the total population of KMs who were still into land and trade but for 18,915 KPs out of total 55055, the math looked fearful enough . How much of these fears were triggered by census itself is not hard to guess. Just like today Census becomes a political game, back then also in Kashmir, Census data was a political tool.
-0-
Overall, if KPs were the exploitative class, there are probably the only exploitative class in the world in which majority of the people belonging to this class were not working in privileged positions. And KPs would be the only exploitative class whose population showed no drastic increase in population dues to all the “exploitation” they were doing.   

-0-

Reference:
1. Census of India 1921 vol.22 Kashmir [Link] under by Chaudhari Khushi Muhammad, Governor of Kashmir.
2. Census of India 1931, Volume 14. Jammu & Kashmir State [Link] under Pandit Anant Ram Dogra, Census Commissioner and Director of Land Records and Pandit Hira Nand Raina, Assistan Census Commissioner.
3.  Census of India 1941, Jammu And Kashmir Parts I And II [Link] under Captain R.G. Wreford, Census Commissioner for the state

In 1941 census, the practice of giving data specific to KPs was put to an end. However, in the report we read, there were 76,868 Kashmiri Pandits in the state in 1941. And:

“Most of the Kashmiri Pandits are residents of Srinagar; over 62,000 live in the Anantnag District in which Srinagar City is situated. Another 11,000 were recorded in Baramulla District. The figures do not exceed a thousand in any other district except Jammu which has 1,367.”

-0-

Posted on

Review: “Kashmir: Exposing the Myth behind the narrative”

The book  “Kashmir: Exposing the Myth behind the narrative” (2017) is written by Khalid Bashir Ahmad, a former Kashmir Administrative Services person who served the State Administration in powerful positions as Director Information and Public Relations and Secretary, J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages, besides heading the departments of Libraries and Research, and Archives, Archaeology and Museums. The book, the latest fat brick targeted at Pandits, aims to prove that the whole Kashmiri Pandit narrative, ever since the beginning of history, is a bunch of lies, a “myth” and it goes about the task by masking anti-pandit propaganda as scholarship. In his zeal to write an all encompassing exposé, the author has unintentionally produced the finest document on what drives the anti-pandit sentiment in Kashmir valley and which class produces it for the gullible masses.

The book tries to settle the 1990 debate by trying to prove that Kashmiri Pandits have been a lying race since 6th century A.D., around the time Nilmata was written that too after annihilation of the Buddhist religion by “militant” Hindus. It’s does not try to debunk parts, it tries to do so the whole.

Khist-i-awwal chu nehad memaar kaj, Taa surayya mee rawad dewar kay
If mason puts the first brick at an angle, the wall, even if raised upto the Pleiad, is bound to come up oblique
Pandits claim to be “aborigines”. So, the first chapter is titled “Aborigines” dedicated to basically proving that Nagas did not exist. According to the writer if “Nagas” are disapproved, it can be proven the Pandits are lying. In trying to do so, it claims the no evidence of “Nagas” is found in neolithic sites like Burzahom. The thought that the snake worship cult evolved much later just does not occur to the writer.  It claims that besides Nilmata and Rajatarangini, there is no mention of Nagas in context of Kashmir. The author ignores the fact that origin of Buddhism in Kashmir also is based on the story of Nagas getting converted at the hands of buddhist monks. All buddhist sources on Kashmir mention the Nagas. The writer claims there is no archeological evidence of Naga worship when the fact is Pandits still worship the fresh water springs of Kashmir as Nagas and remember their deities. Ain-i-Akbari testifies to the fact that in Mughal times the snake cult was strong. The author does not mention the fact the snake deities are still worshiped a few miles away from Srinagar in Kishtwar valley. Instead it is hinted that the snake tales might have come from central India. The author doesn’t mention that Lalitaditya claimed descent from Naga dynasty of Karkota Naga. Even Chaks are said to have come from snake dynasty. Instead the reader is reminded that Buddhists were finished off by Brahmins. Here Kalhana’s account of Buddhist viharas is considered useful but in later chapter Kalhana is denounced as an unreliable source. The conflict between Hindu rulers and Buddhist rulers and subsequent destruction of viharas is read as a religious confrontation while the conflict between Muslim rulers and Hindu subjects and subsequent destruction of temples is never read a conflict between religions. The fact the in Nilmata, Buddha is celebrated is denounced by author as a sign of cultural aggression by Brahmins and not as a sign of cultural assimilation. That this assimilation meant that Buddhism survived in Kashmir valley even till 12th century is ignored. The valley based readers of the book at are no point reminded at a lot of Masjids and Ziyarats in Srinagar as built upon Buddhist sites. No cursory mention of the fact that Jama Masjid of Srinagar used to be holy to Buddhist pilgrims even till 1950s. None of this is mentioned. Instead, the author writes:
“It is interesting to note that while many later Puranas and works such as those of Ksemendra, Jayaratha and Kalhana identify Buddha with Vishnu, all of them denounce Buddhism indirectly by assigning Buddha the task of deluding the people. The departure by the Nilmata in mentioning Buddha in a spirit of catholicity looks calculated. “
Here the author exposes his lack of knowledge of history he has embarked upon exploring. He forgets that Ksemendra himself was a Buddhist. In his works he presents most religious men as charlatans, even Buddhists but particularly the Brahmins.  In Kashmir back them, men were still free to speak their mind against hypocrisy and dogma of religious men. Instead, the author is too focused on proving that writers of Nilmata were “calculating” brahmins. This “Eternal Pandit”, mean, calculating, power hungry, back stabbing, money grabbing is the running theme of the book.
In the next chapter titled “Mind’s eye” the author tries to prove that Kalhana was again a lying brahmin. According to the author, Kalhana in his own words used “Mind’s eye” to write the history of Kashmir, the author writes the entire chapter under the impression that “Mind’s eye” means some sort of divine intuition to write about past that Kalahan had no access to.

The author’s understanding of theory of history is so rudimentary, his approach so flavoured with politics of present times that he does not even realize the utter nonsense he has presented through partial quotes cooked in furnace of deliberate malice . No, Kalhana did not use “Mind’s eye” to write about prehistoric Kashmir. Kalhana mentions “mind’s eye” in context of definition of purpose of a poet. The “mind’s eye” is the plane of the brain that gets triggered when one reads something that stimulates one’s imagination.

Kalhana describing the purpose of a poet writing about histroy
 Kalhana mentions that it is the job of a poet writing history to bring alive history. That it should be written in such a way that the the story plays in the mind of the reader and this is not possible unless it runs alive in the “mind’s eye” of the poet first. He mentions that a poet of history should not just state facts but tell a story, an unbiased story. Rajataragnini is deliberately written by him in “Santa Rasa”. Of course, the author had no clue or no inclination to inform his readers all this. Rajatarangini is written based on theory of Sanskrit literature. “Santa Rasa” or the Rasa of peace is used to offer solace to the world weary mind of the powerful people who read it. The whole Rajatarangini is written with a sense of resignation, that all good things as well as bad things pass. It was for this reason that the leaders like Budshah, Akbar and even Nehru studied and found solace his work. It presents to “mind’s eye” the story in which the power is shown to be ever transitory.  But some people have their “mind’s eye” so blind shut, they can’t see all this. The fact that he have an entire chapter on Kalhana titled “Mind’s eye” makes the author’s ignorance about the meaning of the term all the more hilarious. The reader is not told the Kalhana told the story based on still older texts, even a text of history written by Kshmendra. The reader is not told that history of Kashmir was already known to Mughal world based on Persian translations of Rajatarangini and various other works. The discovery of Rajatarangini manuscript in Kashmir was celebrated because now people had direct access to the source. If there was no Rajatarangini, if the Pandits had not kept it safe, how else would we have known how about the past of Kashmir?
Instead, in this book Kalhana’s mind is targeted as if it it was mind of a delusional brahmin who knew in future Muslims of Kashmir would be bothered by his writings.
“Kalhan was not a man with a closed mind, and this after all, is an essential qualification for a good historian.” …and that’s a quote on Kalhana’s mind from Romila Thapar.
In the next chapter titled “Malice”, the reader is basically told that Jonaraja was again a malicious Brahmin. According to the author,  Jonaraja was a man who hated Musalmaans, why else would he not use the word “musalmaan” even though the word existed as proven by famous Lal Ded saying “na booz Hyund ti Musalmaan”. Genius! The thought that the saying is of obvious later origin just doesn’t occur to the director sahib of historics even though he does quote Chitralekha Zutsi. The reader is not told that the word “mausala” does infact figure in Rajatarangini post Kalhana, instead the reader is confused with words like “Yavanna” and “Mleecha”, not told that even word “Yavanna” is used with beauty by Jonaraja when he describes Muslim/Yavana worshipers as “…crowds of worshippers used to fall down and rise at prayers, imitating the high waves…”

Walter Slaje, the Austrian expert on medieval history of Kashmir and Rajatarangi explains the usage of these terms like this:

Slaje, Medieval Kashmir and the Science of History (2004)

So, the reader thinks Jonaraja, he too was a lying Brahman who told lies about Sikandar just because Jonaraja couldn’t reconcile to the fact that the Hindu era of Kashmir was over. Some one teach director sahib about how not to read the past through the lens of present, lest someone claim that director Sahib is making the claim cause he can’t reconcile to the fact that Kashmir is right now partly ruled by Hindu BJP. It’s like saying that historians-artists of Kashmir will start to invent myths at the first sign of majority religion losing hold of business of running State. Err…isn’t that happening in Kashmir. [the usual reply from Kashmir: a muslim would never do that, only pandits can]. It would also mean that any Pandit rejecting the claims of the book about Jonaraja or Kalhana is obviously doing so because of what happened to him in 1990, and hence is lying. What buffoonery passes for history in case of Kashmir!

The author claims Kalhana was a essentially a poet and a believer of fairytales and hence can’t be trusted, Jonaraja hated Muslims, hence can’t be trusted. But, in this chapter while mentioning the faults of Jonaraja, author asks why Jonaraja didn’t mention Hallaj’s visit to Kashmir. There is a widely and newly found belief in Kashmir that Mansur al-Hallaj (857-922) visited Kashmir in 896 AD. The source of the claim comes from “The Passion of Al-Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr of Islam by Louis Massignon” translated and edited by Herbert Mason (1982/94). Massignon’s work was translation of 13th century manuscripts of “Tadhkirat-ul-Awliyā” (Biographies of Saints) by Attar of Nishapur (1145). Attar was essentially a poet, here the Kashmiri author would like to trust the words of a poet who wrote about miracles performed by Sufis. Interestingly, in the same work of Attar, we read about Kashmiri slaves serving missionaries in Persia. Author ignores all this. [Read: Hallaj in Kashmir]

The next chapter is titled “Power” and the reader is reminded that Pandits were part of the Power circle during Afghan rule. That Pandits invented the stories of persecution.
This chapter on Afghan period in Kashmir ends with reader being told that a pandit was responsible for Shia-Sunni riots and probably was the cause of debauchery of the ruler. Then the reader is told that pandit masses suffered no brutality under Afghans….after all pandit were working for Afghans on high posts. The pandit were again lying. It was pandits who convinced Walter Lawrence to write those horrible things about Afghans. Hence proved: Pandits the perpetual liars and power hungry fiends . He then goes on to quote a pandit…Birbal Kachru’s work to prove that only Muslims (Bombas…readers are not told that Bombas were Shia) suffered under Afghans. Rest is all figment of imagination – “mind’s eye” – of later Kashmiri pandit writers.

In all this the facts reader in Kashmir is not told:

Lawrence based his writing on Peer Hassan (1832-1898) and not some pandit. It is not as if Pandits poisoned Lawrence’s ears against Muslims. Hassan has written at length about it in his “Tarikhi-Kashmir”. Interestingly, the “historian” makes no reference to Hassan in this section.

Reader is not told that GMD Sufi, again a Muslim, in 1949 in his “Kashir A History Of Kashmir” wrote at length about the tyrannical Afghan period and mentions persecution of Hindus as well as Shias. Sufi does not use Kachru as source for Afghan period but uses him for Sikh period during which he lived. For Afghan period he uses Muslim sources, works of afghan era, all of which mention persecution.

Sources used by GMD Sufi.

And finally if someone working for Afghans at high post means it was all peaceful back then for the rest of the community, surely the author of this tome himself working as a government employee for Government of India in 1990s should be read as benevolent nature of the government and a general sign of how peaceful the 90s were.

In between, innumerable inanities, the book also reminds the reader of valley that Kashmiri Pandits are different than rest of Hindus. Proof: Krishna cult had no presence in Kashmir. There are no Krishna statues or temples in Kashmir. The reader is here not told that Kalhana starts his Rajatarangini with mention of Krishna in relation with King Gonanada. The reader is not told that exclusive elaborate Krishna sculptures across India are a recent phenomena. Before that there was more elaborate Vaishnav cult theories centered on various avatars of which many are now considered minor. The reader is not told of the “flute player” on the walls of Martand.*

Why does author bring it up? Because in 1980s, Kashmiri Pandits publicly started celebrating Krishna Janamashtami and the Kashmiri fundamentalists cum conspiracy theorists saw in it the attempt of Kashmiri Pandits aligning with alien “Indian culture”. In such attempts these fraud “intellectuals” try to dictate who is a good native Kashmiri Pandits true to Kashmir and who is bringing in Indian Culture. Back in 80s, all such Indian Kashmiri Pandits were branded Sanghi Pandits.

In the beginning of the same chapter, we are gratuitously told of poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s thoughts on pandits of valley:
A’an Brahman zaadgana-e-zindah dil
Laleh-e-ahmar zi rooye sha’n khajil
Tez been-o pukhta kaar-o-sakhy kosh
Az nigah-e-sha’n farang andar kharosh
Asl-e-sha’n az khaake-e-daamangeer ma’st
Matla-e-ein akhtara’n Kashmir mas’t
These scions of Brahmins with vibrant hearts,
their glowing cheeks out the red tulip to shame.
Keen of eye, mature and strenuous in action,
their very glance puts Europe into commotion.
Their origin is from this protesting soil of ours,
the rising place of these stars is our Kashmir.
It appears that Iqbal loved Pandits and his took pride in his pandit origins. Later as the author unleashes his propaganda against Pandits, the reader has no option but to think of Pandits as ungrateful people.
What the reader is not told is the following lines of Iqbal:
 

Hai jo peshani pe Islam ka teeka Iqbal /
Koi Pandit mujhey kaihta hai to sharm aati hai.

The mark of Islam is on my forehead
I am ashamed if someone calls me a Pandit
The reader is not told that Iqbal of later age, lauded a murderer like Ilam Din and laid the ideological foundation of religious state called Pakistan. If poet Kalhana’s poetic genius should not cloud our opinion about his ability to be neutral, or just his politics, why should any other parameter be set for Iqbal? Why expect pandits to celebrate Iqbal? (another pet peeve of the author of this book)
In the next chapter titled “Blood”, we move to Dogra times. Somewhere, the story of Pandits refusing Muslim “gharwapsi”, a initiative of Dayanand Saraswat is repeated by the author. The author repeats the claim just as it is made by Hindutva people, particularly Balraj Madhok.
 
Using such spins, the pandit are mocked by Sanghis as well as Islamists for being too “proud”. The eternal “proud” pandit.

In this chapter, the reader is reminded that Pandits have muslim blood on their hands and they no Pandit was harmed in 1931. That there were no riots against Hindus. That muslims hands were always clean of any blood.
To that I can offer some personal history:
I called my grandmother this morning to ask her again the story.
I call to ask her the name of the man who died in 1931. Morning of July 13th in Kashmir.
She asks me not to waste my time.
I insist.
He was a brother of her mother.
She doesn’t remember the name. She doesn’t remember the year. What did he do for a living? She doesn’t know.
All she knows:
‘It was the year of first “gadbad“.’
I remember hearing bits: He had gone out to get bread from the local bakery. Someone put an axe to his head.
She doesn’t remember all this.
She asks me not to waste my time with this nonsense.
She asks if I had my breakfast.
 
The next chapter “Agitation” deals with Parmeshwari Handoo case and is interesting as it quotes old local newspaper reports and rightly links the case to rise of Jan Sangh in Kashmir. In this chapter too you will read a Pandit saying some nice things about Jamaat-i-Islami and bad things about Jan Sangh. The book practically is based on the now established textual norm of quoting Pandits to prove Pandit are lying hence tahreekis are telling the only truth. One truth. Readers are reminded by author that inter-religion marriages had previously taken place in Kashmir but there were no communal disturbances. In horde to provide examples of communal harmony, we are told artist Ghulam Rasool married a Pandit girl Santosh Mehra. Fact: Santosh was not a Kashmiri Pandit and Ghulam Rasool was hardly the “ideal” muslim. Why only in Parmeshwaru Handoo case did Pandits came down on streets? Long quotes are provided linking Pandit community en-mass to Jan Sangh. Pandits planning acid attacks, arson attacks and desecrating muslim mosques. Authors uses official police records here.
The reader has no option now but to see Pandit as the perfect enemy.
Fact: Such communal polarizations and crimes are more often than not two sided affairs. How is this act of compilation different from a Hindu organization compiling a list of FIRs naming just Muslims during a riot? To what purpose are such listings used. But, people in Kashmir as so used to their majority status, such questions just do not bother the author.
The real tragedy of Kashmiri Pandits is that this is probably the first book that actually has the exact FIRs of their dead and their raped, and some new names . It is another matter that that are used to forward the usual: 1. Not enough died. 2. Pandits [like their ancestor Kalhana] exaggerated the description of scene [no, no, not like people that did it in case of Asiya-Neelofar in 2009, ignoring the FIRs when needed. Is the official police report of Kunan Poshpora acceptable to the author?

Guess being Director of something in government has its perks. The modern brahmins…those that control the texts…control history. But, I guess most Pandits would thank this book for giving out those FIR details.

In case of Bhan family, using an RTI, the writer finds that the killing did happen and then claims the gruesome details of the killing, flinging from the top floor, were figment of KP minds as the police report don’t offer any detail. Earlier he has already tried hard to prove that either KP killings were carried out by State or for being “informers”. Why now he feels the need to prove that killings were not “gruesome”? Guilt. All proof need to be erased. All blood stains wiped clean.

He then proceeds to expose “Pandit” propaganda using a quote from a Hindutva site to prove that KPs have never ever, never ever, never ever since 14th century, fed the cows.

Most of the killings of minorities in Jammu and Kashmir have been “adopted” online by Hindutva sites. No, you won’t find any neutral site easily with clear data and facts. On hindutva sites written by non-Kashmiris, regurgitation of data has high amount of mutation. Which leads us to this comedy of fools: The professional KM “historian” reads a “fact” and then in his expert 14th opinion decides to cook pandits in a medieval oven of fresh “facts”.

He writes that the hindu propaganda site claims:

“15 [Kashmiri] Pandits who had gone to graze their livestock were murdered ”

He then informs the readers that the elite Kashmiri Pandits never have taken cattle for grazing, ever! That’s all he could come up with to cast the spell of doubt on the killing! So Kashmiri Pandits didn’t die because Pandit wouldn’t touch the job. The discussion ends up about “status” of pandits in ancient Kashmir.

The fact:

The hindutva site mentions: “15 Pandits who had gone to graze their livestock were murdered ”

The “historian” added the word “Kashmiri” to it and started discussing cattle grazing habits of Kashmiri pandits.

The fact: The killing did happen. It was not Kashmiri Pandits. But 15 Hindus of Chirjee near Kishtawar in Doda who were killed by terrorist. The entry for it in not found on any Indian government site online but in US congress report on Human rights.

It didn’t occur to the “historian” (and wouldn’t probably to his readers in Kashmir) that in villages, Pandits used to have cows at home, and like any other villager, this pandit too used to take his cows from grazing. See…now we are talking cow. Isn’t that how most discussions end up these days? Utter ludicrous diversions that don’t allow you to get to the facts.

 

 

In dealing with exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1990, reader is told using account of Muslims that Pandits left Kashmir in aeroplanes. The usual Jagmohan Conspiracy is forwarded as the culmination of centuries old cruel games that pandits like to play.

 Why was this book written the way it was: rejecting Nilmata, Rajatarangini, Afghans brutalities, 1947, 1967, 1986, 1990?

It was done so because Kashmiri Pandit tell their story in that sequence. Pandits claim to be “aborigines”, claim Rajatarangini as “their” history, claim they suffered under Muslim rule, suffered losses in 1947 partitions, were beaten to ground politically in 1967 agitation over “Parmeshwari Handoo case”, suffered rioting in 1986 in Anantnag and were finally forced to flee in 1990.

It’s an infantile game the two sides are playing. Pandit brains wanting to explain 1990 by explaining Sikander. Muslim brains wanting to negate 1990 by negating Sikander. In between always quoting Lal Ded as some symbol of peace. One side claims C is true, then B is true so A is also true. Other side counter claims as A is a lie, so B is a lie and then C obviously is a lie too. No side ready to accept that lies are being peddled left, right and center. And yes, don’t forget pandits are greater liars because in Muslim books you will always find pandit forwarding the “Jagmohan theory”. This book even quotes actor Rahul Bhat saying something like “I accept KMs suffered more than KPs.” Basically, the fact that a KP would empathize with KM is also used as a handy tool when needed. Don’t be surprised if you see less KPs making such claims in future. Don’t be surprised if the chasm between the two communities increases. And don’t be surprised to see which class politically befits from it in India and in Kashmir valley.
-0-

*The Flute players. It is wrong to thing of this image as Krishna. If you are Hindu, if you accept rest of my arguments, if you don’t understand the or know the subject enough, there is a good chance you will accept this as evidence. This is confirmation bias. The bias with which this whole book is written. A muslim reader of the book would have tough time acknowledging it.

The image of Krishna dated 1/2 nd century  A.D is infact found on a boulder in Chilas (POK) along with that of Baldev and even Buddha. A Pakistani expert of Kashmiri origin, A. H. Dani mentions it in his “Chilas: the city of Nanga Parbat” (1983).

-0-

Some more lies from the author:

According to Bashir, cunning Brahmins modified (disfigured) Buddhist statues to give them Hindu look. He calls it Buddhist statue…not Gandhara statues. Bashir calls it “5th century Buddhist statue.”If one reads what he has written…there is only one conclusion that a lay reader in Kashmir with no real access to Hindu culture or original sources would assume: Brahmins mutilated Buddhist statues to make them Hindu. He bases his claim based on writing of Aijaz Bandey about an Ekamukha Shivling in a temple in Baramulla.  Something he reveals (rather hides) in bibliography. And if one actually reads Bandey about that Shiv ling…we read something else completely. We read about how Gandhara art influenced Hindu art in Kashmir. Bandey does not make it sound like Hindus disfigured Buddhist statues to make Hindu gods out of them. Bandey writes about art assimilation. He even accepts there were already such Hindu images in Gandhara. Khalid Bashir Ahmad’s skewed logic if one extends to Muslim art in Kashmir, all Kashmiri traditional Muslim Ziyarats are Buddhist and not just influenced by Buddhist art.

Also, if one knows the basic history of Kashmir…one would know that Mihirkula brought in priests from Gandhara in Kashmir…something that local priests resented. How are these foreign priests supposed to have created a highly localized document like Nilamata?

Example of how the text from Bashir’s book is getting used for propaganda online. The section on left occurs in Bashir’s book.

Propaganda: Stein thought Kalhana’s text was corrupted.

Fact: On page 377 of “Rajatarangini: a chronicle of the kings of Kasmir, Volume 2” Stein is infact talking about the condition of a manuscript of Nilmatapurana found by Georg Bühler. More particularly, Vitastamahatmya. Not Rajatarangini.

Fact: Stein spent his life proving the merit of Kalhana’s Rajatarangini in historical sense by mapping its text to real places, real people as mentioned on coins and inscriptions on sculptures/temples.

Fact: Had manuscripts of Rajatarangini and Nilmatapurana perished like rest of ancient manuscripts of Kashmir, had some families not preserved, our knowledge of old Kashmir would have been next to nothing. Your ultra-nationalistic pride of having thousands of year old history would have been just hot air.

Another use of the quotes from Bashir’s book used for online propaganda. Here again, Bashir’s ability to lie would amaze anyone who has actually read the sources.

Anand Kaul wrote ‘The Kashmiri Pandit’ in 1924. Lawrence used the term “death, conversion or exile” already in 1895. But, of course, the propagandists know most people in Kashmir would easily accept that a Pandit lied being “Brahman Qaum”.

Fact: “Butshikan” term for King Sikandar was used by Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah for his Tarikh-i Firishta (1612). And he mentions the persecution of Hindus. It was not Kashmiri Pandits who invented the term. It was British to first latched on to the term. Anand Kaul only followed their lead. Unlike Bashir he had no access to Google, to know better. Postcolonialism hadn’t yet arrived.

“History Of The Rise Of The Mahomedan Power In India Volume 4. Enlish translation by John Briggs 1831.

Fact: Jonaraja does mention that Sikandar did towards the end of his life change his ways. Jaziya was stopped.

Fact: Toward the end of Sikandar era we do find an old sculpture of Brahma that in Sharda has an inscription with name of King Sikandar on it, having being commissioned by a Hindu/Buddhist  officer of the king.

-0-

Another example of these half-educated charlatans befool the people. Clearly, the author has no actually understanding of the history of Shaivism in Kashmir. He is out of depth here, and yet he does not shy away from making a fool of himself. Here again, the reader is reminded that even Shaivism was a relatively recent import from mainland India by clever, deceitful, exploitative Brahmins. In his frenzy, the author ignores the actual facts and instead invents another lie: Tryambakaditya settled in Kashmir in 800 A.D.

Fact: Sangamaditya, the 16th descendant in the line of Tryambaka settled in Kashmir in 8th century. His father Tryambaka XV married a brahmin woman in Kashmir. In that he broke the the celibacy tradition of the “Siddhas” all of whom were given the title “Tryambaka”. The matrilineal society of Kashmir demanded that Tryambaka XV’s son settle in Kashmir. So, Sangamaditya the 16th descendant in the line of the mythical original Tryambaka settled in Kashmir.

Somananda, 4th descendant of Sangamaditya produced Shaiva literature (Sivadrsti) in 9th century.

[ref: Śaivāgamas: A Study in the Socio-economic Ideas and Institutions of Kashmir by V. N. Drabu]

Fact: This is how most famous Kashmiri Shaivite Abhinavagupta (c. 950 – 1016 AD) in his Gītārthasaṅgraha was re-interpreting “divine word of god” Gita to make the text more inclusive. This is how the ideas of Shaivite in Kashmir, were setting ideological base for coming of Lal Ded and Nund Rishi who would see all humanity as one. It was in a way Shaivite and their monotheism that made Islam not a completely alien thought for the masses in Kashmir.

 

Anyone who has actually read Trika system would know that Saiva system looked down upon temple worship, daily rituals of brahmins and even the Vedas were treated as inferior knowledge.

Yes, Kalhana and Kshemendra mock the priests and pretenders. That tells us even back then, just like now, there were charlatans. Even, Noor ud-Din Noorani in his time mocks the Mullas and their exploitative ways. This also tells us that back then Kashmiris had a culture of criticism. A culture that is missing in missionaries that arrived in Kashmir later.


The Mullas flourish on money 

fests
These Sheikhs like honey
stick to wealth
The sufis half-naked
do no work
yet, enjoy
unrepentant
many scrumptious meals

None pursue knowledge,
It’s all just another game
these selves
unrestrained

Seen them lately?
Catch them live
Try this old trick:
Announce a grand feast,
from pulpit
now watch
This Mulla run to the Masjid

“Run sick Mulla! Run!
Run to your Masjid.”

These are the words of the saint of Kashmir, after whom the Srinagar airport is named ( built on a Karewa named after a Naga, Damodara).

090

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram
RSS