Kashmiris have learnt the ways to defeat the monster of oppression, writes Asgar Qadri
Kashmir has again witnessed the expression hidden passions. It is not a sudden appearance but reflects the continuity of resistance. This collective cry of Kashmiris is not the first one. When I delve into my memories I find Kashmir stained with tragedies.
When I first began to understand and assign meaning to the uncertainties of the world, I saw my people fighting a monster that was trying to devour them. It was the spring of year 1991. I was a 5th grade student, too young to understand the rationale behind things as complex as revolution. On that particular day I was walking up to my school, one with nature as hummingbirds and bumblebees, when I found myself in the middle of a massive procession, one of the many happening during those days, announcing the arrival of armed resistance against the Indian occupation. Leading this procession was an elderly man from my village, accompanying him were my father, my brother and hundreds, if not thousands, of other young and old from the same locality. When I saw my brother thundering the air with pro-freedom slogans I also began to add to the hundreds of other similar voices that were reverberating around me. It was for the first time I experienced the rush of adrenaline in my veins. I arrived late at my weathered school building, tried to give explanations to my teacher.
A few days later when my brother was returning home after attending his tuition classes a patrolling party of Indian paramilitary forces fired at him; bullet missed him, may be because they fired from little far or may be he was destined to live on. A woman who was known to my family sheltered him in her house. After almost half an hour when the paramilitary force personnel left the area the same woman accompanied my brother home. My brother was still in the grip of horror, not able to speak and explain what exactly had happened. "Your son has cheated the death": this is what that woman cried out to my mother. I still remember my sisters, my mother and grandmother all hugging my brother with tears flowing down from their eyes. This was for the first time my family experienced this form of fear and shock and above all we realized that the monster has arrived at the gates.
By now a full scale armed rebellion against the Indian occupation was on in the valley and India wasted no time in deploying a mammoth military system to crush it. What followed was brutal repression and misery unleashed by Indian military on Kashmiri people.
The policies adopted by Indian state to crush the rebellion were typical of a colonizer. Perpetuating the suffering of natives while thinking that they mean nothing to them; it was something which Europeans had done when they colonized Africa during 18th and much of the 19th century. The geographical structure of Kashmir only facilitated Indian imperial policies to flourish in the valley. Kashmir to India has been like a skull island: a mythical island in Hollywood movie King Kong in which a movie producer (Jack Black) forces the crew of hired ship to travel to the Skull island which hides behind its high rising walls a monstrous ape called Kong. The representatives of Indian state, behind the high rising walls of Peer Panchal and Himalayas, did everything they wanted- be it the ruthless killing of Kashmiris or assault on honour. This brutal repression coincided with the era of globalisation, which arrived in India at the dawn of 1990s, the same time when insurgency broke out in Kashmir. India, since its independence, made it sure that Kashmir has no negative impact on its economic growth and development, as it always knew that Kashmir's integration with it was something that was achieved through deceit and coercion and therefore developing Kashmir economically could have only meant detriment to Indian occupation. As economy always determines polity, and as Kashmir meant nothing to India economically, this only allowed the Indian state to plunder Kashmiris more and more and continue brutal imperial laws and policies in the valley.
Nirad Chaudhuri, in his book-The Continent of Circe, writes about the Hindu sense of loss associated with the Himalayas: the cold regions the Aryan settlers of north India had come from. This sense of loss was much more deeper in Nehru whos "partiality for Kashmir", as he himself said, came to shape the Indian attitudes towards Kashmir well after his death.
By the mid 1930s Nehru had become the unchallenged leader of Indian National Congress under the patronage of Ghandi and this was the time when Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, the charismatic Kashmiri leader, led the first organised opposition against Maharaja's rule in Kashmir. Abdullah found himself supported by the leaders of Indian National Movement in his fight against the Maharaja, especially by Pandit Nehru. Abdullah could never realize the sinister ambition behind this support- the ambition of Hindu revivalism, of gaining control over Himalayas towards which Nehru, a Brahmin himself, had a deep pantheistic feeling.
Nehru's ancestors came from Kashmir, and had moved to the north Indian city of Allahabad just a few decades before his birth in 1889. The ambition of possessing the land of his ancestors coupled with his longing for Himalayas only strengthened his resolve to integrate Kashmir with India at any cost. By the time Abdullah could realize this, it was too late for him. In 1953 when he revived the idea of independent Kashmir, Nehru dismissed his government and threw him in the prison for the eleven years. By now Nehru's sense of possessiveness and his fear of losing Kashmir had become India's National imperative, which its representatives after Nehru continued to exhibit and execute with a much greater zeal.
Kashmir with out Abdullah, as brilliant Indian writer and journalist Pankaj Mishra quotes, "reverted to being what it was for centuries under the Mughal rule: a dependency, its fate controlled by a distant greater power whose representatives could do what they wished to as long as no one was there to rock the boat". Kashmir’s political life came to be dominated by small men with small ambitions of personal empowerment and enrichment.
India continued its colonial policies in Kashmir at a much greater pace, effectively using the policy of divide and rule, creating a native bourgeoisie which continued to execute its imperial rule in Kashmir, something which British had employed with great success when they colonized India.
As Frantz Fanon writes in his masterpiece, The wretched of the earth, "In order to fight against the colonizer the colony must fight against itself". Kashmiris couldn't fight against the corrupt native bourgeoisie that was created and nurtured in the valley during the decade of 1960s, 70s and most of the 80s. In fact most of us embraced it and as a result this native bourgeoisie, always loyal to India, controlled all the power and continued to keep Kashmir in the grip of imperialist hands.
It was in 1984 when Mrs Ghandi appointed Jagmohan as the governor of Kashmir. Her sense of possession for Kashmir was much more blatant than her father’s. Jagmohan who was already known as a pro-Hindu bureaucrat was inspired, like many Indian nationalists, by the resettlement policies of Israeli government in the occupied territories during 1970s. He did everything that he could to undermine the Kashmiri culture and change its demography.
But by 1989 the level of Indian oppression, which was so far more insidious than direct, had crossed the limits and Kashmiris had subconsciously realized that if they don't rock the boat now they will be crushed for ever. Now Kashmiris rose in revolt together, banishing the colonial structures and raising the slogans of freedom.
Before this there were many men who rose in revolt against the Indian imperial rule but some of them were crushed with brute force, some simply gave up while as others were lured by the small aim of personal enrichment.
But now Kashmir was burning, the revolution was on and hundreds of thousands of Indian army personal were deployed in the valley to kill as many Kashmiris as they could, which they have continued to do till today. As the armed resistance against Indian occupation continued and entered different phases the suffering of Kashmiris at the hands of Indian military forces got worse and worse. Every moment in the time came with fear and insecurity of being taken by Indian army, killed and your dead body thrown on the road.
I still remember those terrorizing nights when Indian army personal would knock at our door and all of us in the family would cringe in some corner, neither able to cry nor keep silent; watch helplessly as the army men would plunder everything upside down. The magnitude of this pain, which Kashmiris have suffered over the last two decades, is impossible to grasp with a single imagination. One needs to divide time into parts to understand its vastness.
When Jagmohan was appointed as the governor of Kashmir, India started to unleash another colonial policy that is to plant the settlers and exploit at the same time. The recent transfer of land to SASB is not the first such event, it is the continuity of decades old colonial policy which India has been executing in Kashmir since It gained the physical control of it in 1947.
But now Kashmir is no more the Victor Jacquemont's Kashmir: a French botanist who travelled to Kashmir in 1831 and described it as the most wretched in the entire subcontinent.
More than half a century old Indian imperial rule has created a new breed of leaders, intelligentsia and educated youth who are well capable of deconstructing and exposing the Indian colonial ideology. It has happened in the past, where the colonizer inevitably creates and nurtures the individuals who later lead the movements to dismantle its rule. To mention a few, Ghandi, Nehru, Tagore all were the products of British colonial rule who after getting access to the modern world through western education came to lead the Indian freedom movement against British.
Our fight will continue as our sacrifices will only strengthen our endeavour towards our freedom. This is what my belief is; as I continue living away from home, dislocated and captivated, mourning the death of Feroz, Farooq, Sameer and others killed in police firing last month.
A few days later when my brother was returning home after attending his tuition classes a patrolling party of Indian paramilitary forces fired at him; bullet missed him, may be because they fired from little far or may be he was destined to live on. A woman who was known to my family sheltered him in her house. After almost half an hour when the paramilitary force personnel left the area the same woman accompanied my brother home. My brother was still in the grip of horror, not able to speak and explain what exactly had happened. "Your son has cheated the death": this is what that woman cried out to my mother. I still remember my sisters, my mother and grandmother all hugging my brother with tears flowing down from their eyes. This was for the first time my family experienced this form of fear and shock and above all we realized that the monster has arrived at the gates.
By now a full scale armed rebellion against the Indian occupation was on in the valley and India wasted no time in deploying a mammoth military system to crush it. What followed was brutal repression and misery unleashed by Indian military on Kashmiri people.
The policies adopted by Indian state to crush the rebellion were typical of a colonizer. Perpetuating the suffering of natives while thinking that they mean nothing to them; it was something which Europeans had done when they colonized Africa during 18th and much of the 19th century. The geographical structure of Kashmir only facilitated Indian imperial policies to flourish in the valley. Kashmir to India has been like a skull island: a mythical island in Hollywood movie King Kong in which a movie producer (Jack Black) forces the crew of hired ship to travel to the Skull island which hides behind its high rising walls a monstrous ape called Kong. The representatives of Indian state, behind the high rising walls of Peer Panchal and Himalayas, did everything they wanted- be it the ruthless killing of Kashmiris or assault on honour. This brutal repression coincided with the era of globalisation, which arrived in India at the dawn of 1990s, the same time when insurgency broke out in Kashmir. India, since its independence, made it sure that Kashmir has no negative impact on its economic growth and development, as it always knew that Kashmir's integration with it was something that was achieved through deceit and coercion and therefore developing Kashmir economically could have only meant detriment to Indian occupation. As economy always determines polity, and as Kashmir meant nothing to India economically, this only allowed the Indian state to plunder Kashmiris more and more and continue brutal imperial laws and policies in the valley.
Nirad Chaudhuri, in his book-The Continent of Circe, writes about the Hindu sense of loss associated with the Himalayas: the cold regions the Aryan settlers of north India had come from. This sense of loss was much more deeper in Nehru whos "partiality for Kashmir", as he himself said, came to shape the Indian attitudes towards Kashmir well after his death.
By the mid 1930s Nehru had become the unchallenged leader of Indian National Congress under the patronage of Ghandi and this was the time when Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, the charismatic Kashmiri leader, led the first organised opposition against Maharaja's rule in Kashmir. Abdullah found himself supported by the leaders of Indian National Movement in his fight against the Maharaja, especially by Pandit Nehru. Abdullah could never realize the sinister ambition behind this support- the ambition of Hindu revivalism, of gaining control over Himalayas towards which Nehru, a Brahmin himself, had a deep pantheistic feeling.
Nehru's ancestors came from Kashmir, and had moved to the north Indian city of Allahabad just a few decades before his birth in 1889. The ambition of possessing the land of his ancestors coupled with his longing for Himalayas only strengthened his resolve to integrate Kashmir with India at any cost. By the time Abdullah could realize this, it was too late for him. In 1953 when he revived the idea of independent Kashmir, Nehru dismissed his government and threw him in the prison for the eleven years. By now Nehru's sense of possessiveness and his fear of losing Kashmir had become India's National imperative, which its representatives after Nehru continued to exhibit and execute with a much greater zeal.
Kashmir with out Abdullah, as brilliant Indian writer and journalist Pankaj Mishra quotes, "reverted to being what it was for centuries under the Mughal rule: a dependency, its fate controlled by a distant greater power whose representatives could do what they wished to as long as no one was there to rock the boat". Kashmir’s political life came to be dominated by small men with small ambitions of personal empowerment and enrichment.
India continued its colonial policies in Kashmir at a much greater pace, effectively using the policy of divide and rule, creating a native bourgeoisie which continued to execute its imperial rule in Kashmir, something which British had employed with great success when they colonized India.
As Frantz Fanon writes in his masterpiece, The wretched of the earth, "In order to fight against the colonizer the colony must fight against itself". Kashmiris couldn't fight against the corrupt native bourgeoisie that was created and nurtured in the valley during the decade of 1960s, 70s and most of the 80s. In fact most of us embraced it and as a result this native bourgeoisie, always loyal to India, controlled all the power and continued to keep Kashmir in the grip of imperialist hands.
It was in 1984 when Mrs Ghandi appointed Jagmohan as the governor of Kashmir. Her sense of possession for Kashmir was much more blatant than her father’s. Jagmohan who was already known as a pro-Hindu bureaucrat was inspired, like many Indian nationalists, by the resettlement policies of Israeli government in the occupied territories during 1970s. He did everything that he could to undermine the Kashmiri culture and change its demography.
But by 1989 the level of Indian oppression, which was so far more insidious than direct, had crossed the limits and Kashmiris had subconsciously realized that if they don't rock the boat now they will be crushed for ever. Now Kashmiris rose in revolt together, banishing the colonial structures and raising the slogans of freedom.
Before this there were many men who rose in revolt against the Indian imperial rule but some of them were crushed with brute force, some simply gave up while as others were lured by the small aim of personal enrichment.
But now Kashmir was burning, the revolution was on and hundreds of thousands of Indian army personal were deployed in the valley to kill as many Kashmiris as they could, which they have continued to do till today. As the armed resistance against Indian occupation continued and entered different phases the suffering of Kashmiris at the hands of Indian military forces got worse and worse. Every moment in the time came with fear and insecurity of being taken by Indian army, killed and your dead body thrown on the road.
I still remember those terrorizing nights when Indian army personal would knock at our door and all of us in the family would cringe in some corner, neither able to cry nor keep silent; watch helplessly as the army men would plunder everything upside down. The magnitude of this pain, which Kashmiris have suffered over the last two decades, is impossible to grasp with a single imagination. One needs to divide time into parts to understand its vastness.
When Jagmohan was appointed as the governor of Kashmir, India started to unleash another colonial policy that is to plant the settlers and exploit at the same time. The recent transfer of land to SASB is not the first such event, it is the continuity of decades old colonial policy which India has been executing in Kashmir since It gained the physical control of it in 1947.
But now Kashmir is no more the Victor Jacquemont's Kashmir: a French botanist who travelled to Kashmir in 1831 and described it as the most wretched in the entire subcontinent.
More than half a century old Indian imperial rule has created a new breed of leaders, intelligentsia and educated youth who are well capable of deconstructing and exposing the Indian colonial ideology. It has happened in the past, where the colonizer inevitably creates and nurtures the individuals who later lead the movements to dismantle its rule. To mention a few, Ghandi, Nehru, Tagore all were the products of British colonial rule who after getting access to the modern world through western education came to lead the Indian freedom movement against British.
Our fight will continue as our sacrifices will only strengthen our endeavour towards our freedom. This is what my belief is; as I continue living away from home, dislocated and captivated, mourning the death of Feroz, Farooq, Sameer and others killed in police firing last month.
Feedback at asgarqadri@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment