Mohammad Haziq
Name of Book: Footprints of Hidutva in Kashmir
Author : M Saleem Pandit
The book “Footprints of Hindutva in Kashmir” written by M Saleem Pandit, a senior Journalist of The Times of India, provides insights into the growing influence of Hindu nationalism in Kashmir since the 1930s when Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was leading the fight against autocratic rule with the support of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress party with the sole aim to oust Maharaja Hari Singh and no vision for the future of Kashmir in particular.
The book makes several revelations about Sheikh Abdullah’s limited aims and the RSS leaders’ larger goal of establishing a presence in the Muslim-dominated region of Jammu and Kashmir, which had become a concern for the Hindu Dogra king as the Kashmiri uprising was gaining momentum and tarnishing the Maharaja’s image in the Lahore Muslim press while Sheikh Abdullah was creating trouble inside Srinagar city.
On July 13, 1932, a significant event occurred when 22 people were killed due to police firing outside the Srinagar central jail during the court hearing of Ghulam Qadeer Khan Durani, an Afghan national charged with sedition. The shrewd Sheikh Abdullah, who was part of the agitating group outside the jail, arrived only after the incident and took the bodies around old Srinagar localities to incite street violence. The agitating crowd even looted and attacked the shops of many non-Muslims, leading to communal riots that resulted in the killing of another 11 people in various incidents of firing during the unrest.The incident made headlines in the Muslim press in Lahore, and B.S. Moonje, a prominent RSS ideologue, learned about it. Moonje wrote a letter to Hari Singh, urging him to provide funds to improve the image of the Hindu Maharaja in the English press in London. Moonje aimed to counter the communal tag slapped on the Maharaja by the Muslim press in various places against the Hindu king.
The RSS aimed to strengthen Hindu identity and nationalism in a region that was predominantly Muslim. This was part of a broader strategy to counter the influence of Muslim political movements and assert Hindu presence in Jammu and Kashmir. RSS leaders sought to influence Maharaja Hari Singh’s political decisions, particularly regarding the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. They aimed to convince him to align more closely with Indian nationalism and the Indian government, especially during the tumultuous period leading up to and following the partition of India in 1947. RSS leaders worked to reshape the narrative surrounding Maharaja Hari Singh, portraying him as a nationalist figure rather than a reluctant ruler. This involved efforts to counteract the perception that he delayed the accession to India and to highlight his eventual decision to sign the Instrument of Accession.
The RSS aimed to mobilize support among Hindus in Kashmir and beyond, fostering a sense of unity and purpose in the face of communal tensions. This included organizing community events and promoting Hindu cultural values in the region.
By positioning Maharaja Hari Singh as a key figure in the narrative of Kashmir’s accession to India, the RSS sought to create a lasting legacy that would resonate with future generations and reinforce Hindu claims to the region.These goals reflect the RSS’s broader objectives of promoting Hindu nationalism and influencing the political landscape in Jammu and Kashmir during a critical period in its history.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who rose to prominence by 1947, had ambitions to take ownership of the Jammu and Kashmir state and govern its subjects similarly to other kings. However, his vision was limited, as he seemed unable to see beyond Banihal and did not adequately consider the broader political landscape, including Jammu. Under the influence of leftist allies like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mian Iftikhar Hussain, Abdullah rebranded his party from the National Conference to adopt a more secular image. This shift was in line with the “Naya Kashmir” (New Kashmir) document, which was drafted with the help of leftist figures and mirrored aspects of Stalin’s constitution. Abdullah’s focus was primarily on creating unrest in Srinagar rather than addressing the concerns of the Pir Panjal Muslims from Poonch, Rajouri, Reasi, and Doda. His actions included collaborating with associates from Maisuma, which contributed to local tensions. The author notes that Abdullah’s self-centeredness was evident when he left Kashmir during the Pakistani invasion, known as the Gulmarg operation, which began on October 22, 1947. After being released from imprisonment on September 29, 1947, at the behest of Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, Abdullah was provided with a state aircraft to evacuate his family to Pune for safety. This occurred despite the knowledge of an impending Pakistani attack by prominent Indian leaders. During this tumultuous period, a notable RSS leader, also visited Jammu and was allegedly involved in orchestrating violence against Muslims during the Poonch revolt. The author references claims from a French book source that nearly 200,000 Muslims were killed during the ensuing riots, highlighting the significant communal tensions and violence that characterized this period in Kashmir’s history.
The book draws a comparison between Sheikh Abdullah and Ali Shah Geelani, a prominent separatist leader: Geelani allegedly joined the Pakistani insurgency in 1993 after losing his job as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. He had been an MLA three times until 1990.
The book suggests Geelani was compelled to take this path due to losing his political position, similar to accusations against Sheikh Abdullah of turning against India. While Sheikh Abdullah played a critical role in Kashmir’s accession to India, the book makes serious allegations about his later actions and rule as Prime Minister. The comparison drawn to Ali Shah Geelani also implies a pattern of Kashmiri leaders turning to separatism after losing political power. However, these claims require further scrutiny and evidence to be conclusively proven
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s imprisonment in 1953 was primarily the result of political tensions and his evolving stance on Kashmir’s relationship with India. Sheikh then realized and publicly expressed skepticism about India’s intentions and criticized the communal tensions exacerbated by the Jana Sangh and other right-wing groups.
His statements during public rallies indicated a shift in his stance, where he began to question the legitimacy of the Indian state’s promises to Kashmiris. The Jammu Praja Parishad’s agitation for full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India intensified political tensions. Abdullah’s reaction to this agitation was seen as inflammatory, as he accused the agitators of communalism and sought to rally support against them. This response alienated him from certain political circles and contributed to the perception that he was becoming a liability for the Indian government. Abdullah Lost Support from Indian Leadership Initially a close ally of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, his relationship with the Indian leadership soured over time. As he began to advocate for greater autonomy and questioned the direction of Indian policies in Kashmir, he lost the support of key figures in Delhi, including Nehru.
The author’s views in the book “Footprints of Hindutva in Kashmir”, provide some background information on the history of state subject laws in Jammu and Kashmir and the reactions of Kashmiri Pandits to the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. The author gives illustrations about Kashmiri Pandits compelling Dogra rulers to issue ordinances. The state-subject laws were initially advocated by Kashmiri Pandits to protect their interests in government jobs and land ownership in the face of an influx of outsiders like Punjabis into the Dogra administration. However, the results also note that these laws were later seen as benefiting the Muslim population more because they were in the majority. The relationship between Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims had evolved significantly over time, shaped by historical, social, and political factors. Kashmiri Pandits and Muslims coexisted in the Kashmir Valley, with Pandits often holding positions of influence due to their education and administrative roles. The Pandits, as a minority community, advocated for rights and representation, particularly in government jobs, which led to tensions with the Dogra rulers and the influx of non-locals, particularly Punjabis, into administrative positions.
In the early 20th century, Kashmiri Pandits played a crucial role in advocating for the State Subject Law, which aimed to protect local jobs and land ownership for residents of Jammu and Kashmir. This law was initially seen as a secular measure benefiting all locals, but over time, it became associated more with the Hindu community, leading to a perception of exclusion among Muslims. Post-1947 . The 1990: exodus made the relationship between the two communities sour and caused many Pandits to perceive the Muslim community as a threat, leading to a narrative that painted Muslims as radicals. Some Kashmiri Pandits welcomed this move, seeing it as a step towards integration with India, while many Kashmiri Muslims viewed it as an erosion of their rights and autonomy.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
