Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (14)
Similar to Tales Of Kashmir
Similar to Tales Of Kashmir (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Tales Of Kashmir
- 1. Kashmir the war of Mind and Brains TALES OF KASHMIR Forty years ago, India’s first prime minister passed into the ages. On his death anniversary, May 27, Lieutenant General Eric A Vas (retd) commenced rediff.com’s series to evaluate Jawaharlal Nehru’s legacy with a perspective of the premier’s relationship with the military. Today, Claude Arpi, the well-known Tibet and Kashmir expert, analyses how Nehru’s obsession with the politics of his ancestral state eventually bequeathed a festering problem for the whole of India. India’s first prime minister passed away 40 years ago; it should be time to assess his 17 years in office. Unfortunately, historians and researchers have never been allowed access to original materials to write about Nehru’s leadership during the troubled years after Independence. It is tragic that the famous ‘Nehru Papers’ are jealously locked away in the Nehru Memorial Library. They are, in fact, the property of his family! I find it even more regrettable that during its six years in power, the NDA government, often accused of trying to rewrite history, did not take any action to rectify this anomaly. Possibly they were not interested in recent history! Apart from Nehru’s official correspondence and notes, government reports such as the Henderson-Brookes Report (see earlier article, The Confiscation of History) are still classified more than 40 years after they were written. Some pretend that if published it would be too damaging for India’s security. It is just laughable! As a result, today history lovers and serious researchers have only the 31 volumes published so far of the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru (covering the period 1946 to 1955) to fall back on. This could be considered a partial declassification of the
- 2. Nehru Papers, except for the fact that the editing has always been undertaken by Nehruvian historians, making at times the selection tainted. The other problem is that these volumes cover only the writings (or sayings) of Nehru; notes or letters of other officials or dignitaries which triggered Nehru’s answers are only briefly and unsatisfactorily resumed in footnotes. With these limitations in mind, it is interesting to try to assess Nehru’s role in the Kashmir question. Fifty-seven years after Independence, it has remained an unsolved (if not a ‘core’) issue for the subcontinent. Everything started in early 1946 when the Indian National Congress had to elect a new president. It was an accepted fact that the leader chosen as Congress president would become the first prime minister of independent India. Three candidates were in the race: Acharya Kripalani, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel. The working committee of the INC and the pradesh committees had to send their nomination for one of the three candidates. Sardar Patel was easily the most popular. Everyone knew his efficiency and his toughness for tackling difficult problems. Twelve out of 19 Pradesh committees nominated him. None nominated Nehru. From the start Gandhi had indicated that he favoured Nehru. His reasoning was that his British education was an asset: ‘Jawaharlal cannot be replaced today whilst the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate, and a barrister, is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen.’ Another point Gandhi made was that while Sardar Patel would agree to work as Nehru’s deputy, the reverse might not happen. He also felt that Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in international affairs. Eventually, in deference to Gandhi, Kripalani nominated Nehru and withdrew from the race. Patel had no choice but to follow his colleague ‘so that Nehru could be elected unopposed.’ Dr Rajendra Prasad later stated: ‘Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.’ It is how India got a Kashmiri Pandit as its first prime minister. I have always found it strange that a man professing to be above caste or religion agreed to be called ‘Panditji.’ Nonetheless, the fact that a Pandit was the prime minister made Kashmir a state different from the 500 other princely states. Soon, the conflicting aspects in Nehru’s persona came to the fore. On one hand, he was a democrat and revolutionary; on the other, he was often carried away by his ‘Socialist’ ideals to the point of blundering with India’s destiny.
- 3. After his election as Congress president, he gave his support to his friend Sheikh Abdullah (he called him his ‘blood brother’) who had been jailed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir. In June 1946, he decided to go to the valley to free Abdullah. The situation was certainly not shining in Kashmir (as in the rest of India), but to take on the maharaja at this point in time was a serious mistake. However, for Nehru, ‘Anything that happens in Kashmir has a certain importance for the rest of India, but recent events there have had an even greater importance, [they] became symbols of a larger struggle for emancipation. Thus Kashmir became symbolic of the [princely] States in India.’ He wanted to take on ‘the autocratic and often feudal rule that prevails there.’ He did not realise that the princes’ support and collaboration would be indispensable during this all-important transition period for the nation. Though prohibited to enter the maharaja’s state, in July 1946 Nehru decided to defy the ban. Patel and other members of the working committee tried to dissuade him: there were more important matters to tackle in Delhi after the Cabinet Mission had come to discuss the transfer of power. In a letter to D P Mishra, Patel explained: ‘He [Nehru] has done many things recently which have caused us great embarrassment. His actions in Kashmir … are acts of emotional insanity and it puts tremendous strain on us to set the matters right.’ However, Patel, always fair, added: ‘but in spite of all these innocent indiscretions he has unparalleled enthusiasm and a burning passion for freedom.’ Patel, thus, pointed out the two powerful (and opposing) aspects of Nehru’s personality. A year later, hardly two weeks before Independence, Nehru still wanted to go to Srinagar. He wrote to Gandhi: ‘I shall go ahead with my plans. As between visiting Kashmir when my people need me there and being prime minister, I prefer the former.’ Once again he had to be dissuaded. At the stroke of the midnight hour on August 14, India awakened to life and freedom. Unfortunately, Maharaja Hari Singh remembered the events of the previous year and while most princes signed the Instrument of Accession of their state to the Dominion of India, Hari Singh prevaricated. What would happen to him and his state under Nehru’s rule? He also knew that the future of his state could not lie with Jinnah and his government. In September, he decided to offer Kashmir’s accession to India. This was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as prime minister of the state. This was not acceptable to the maharaja.
- 4. Things came to a head at the end of October 1947 when raiders from the North West Frontier Province entered the state, killing, looting, and raping along. On October 26, they had reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Hari Singh agreed to sign the Instrument of Accession. On the same day a historic meeting was held in Delhi with Mountbatten, the governor general, as chairman. A young army colonel named Sam Manekshaw, who attended the meeting, recalled: ‘As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God Almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?‘ He [Nehru] said, ‘Of course, I want Kashmir.‘ Then he [Patel] said:‘Please give your orders.‘ This anecdote perfectly exemplifies Nehru, who could make the greatest speeches, but was unable to take a decision at a crucial moment. Thanks to Patel’s decisiveness, troops were flown to Srinagar the next morning and the airport, the only link with India, was saved. Military operations to expel the raiders started. Nehru’s colleagues soon discovered they had made another serious blunder, a collective one. They had chosen Mountbatten to be the first governor general of independent India while Jinnah had kept the post for himself in Pakistan. At that time, it was probably easier for the Congress to have a foreigner as the head of the Dominion; it conveniently avoided having to choose among themselves. However, Mountbatten manipulated matters so well that he became chairman of a newly created defence council. Nehru did not see a problem in this: Mountbatten (and his wife) were his best friends. But this was to have grave repercussions on Kashmir policy. Mountbatten, a British officer, was now at the helm of the executive defence machinery. British generals still serving in India reported to him. Mountbatten was not working for India’s interests, but the British crown’s. Nehru’s sentimental attachment to the Mountbattens deeply vitiated the Kashmir issue. It was certainly the most important factor for the failure to find a solution in the first years of the conflict. Events took a turn for the worse at the end of December 1947 when the governor general managed to convince Nehru that India had to refer the Kashmir issue to the UN instead of conducting a military counterattack in West Punjab. Patel did not agree. But at this precise point in time the Sardar, who had so far looked after the relations with the princely states, was sidetracked. On December 23, he wrote his resignation, but was prevented (by Gandhi) from pressing for it. From that day, with Patel out of Kashmir affairs, things went from bad to worse.
- 5. In the first months of 1948, during the UN hearings, the British showed where their interests lay. The original Indian complaint was completely left aside and the Security Council began adopting anti-India resolutions. Abdullah had already started his crusade (particularly with the US administration) for Kashmir’s independence. He remained Nehru’s friend till his scheming became too dangerous for India. In August 1953, he was finally dismissed by Karan Singh, the sadar-i-riyasat. Two months earlier, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, who had been arrested by Abdullah and left without medical care in Srinagar, died in mysterious circumstances. Nehru had visited the capital of Kashmir a few days earlier, but did not find the time to call on his former Cabinet colleague. He later wrote to Mookerjee’s mother: ‘Indeed, I hoped that the healthy climate of Kashmir might lead to an improvement in Shyama Babu’s health.’ Though in the following years Nehru hardened his position when different UN commissions (Dixon, Graham, Jarring) visited Delhi, it was too late. Pakistan was certainly not interested in vacating the so-called ‘Azad Kashmir’, rendering the plans for a plebiscite mentioned in the UN resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949 irrelevant. A few days before his death Nehru sent a freshly released Abdullah to meet Ayub Khan with a proposal to have a confederation of India, Pakistan and Kashmir. The proposal was contemptuously rejected as ‘absurd’ by the Pakistani military ruler. It was Nehru’s last attempt to solve the issue and it failed. In retrospect, despite Nehru’s love for great principles, his incapacity to take decisions in time, his inability to work with colleagues like Patel, and his friendship with individuals such as the Mounbattens or Abdullah, who had their own interests, blinded him so much that he did not further India’s national interests. The consequences have been tragic and the muddle created 57 years ago remains far from being sorted out. Kashmir Problem Q : Government does not seem to know what is to be done next in Kashmir. It does not want to lose Kashmir and it does not know how to keep it! A : There is only one way to keep Kashmir – and that is by complete integration. Article 370 must go; the separate flag and the separate constitution must go too. If it is necessary to have, President‟s Rule is a temporary thing. Within a year or two there will have to be fresh
- 6. elections. And the new Vidhan Sabha may be more rabidly communal than the present one. But as I see it, the basic question is whether we want to keep Kashmir or not. Since it is decided that we must keep Kashmir, all necessary steps must be taken to implement that decision. If the border area of NEFA can be centrally administered through the Army, why can‟t the border area of Kashmir be administered the same way for the same strategic reasons? Q : What will the world say? A : We must decide what are our vital national interests and then proceed to safeguard them. We must not bother too much about so-called world opinion. Do you think it is favorable to you even now? Did this „world opinion‟ favor you over Junagadh or Hyderabad or Goa? Bharat must be governed by Bharat‟s interest and not at the bidding of foreign opinion, which is only a reflection of foreign interests. Some time back the London Times correspondent in Delhi met me. He asked me, what I thought of the Presidential election in our country. I told him a new President (Dr. Zakir Husain) had been elected and I had nothing to say about it. But he persisted and said that some religious leaders had criticized his election. I told him, “So what? When Edward VIII wanted to marry Mrs. Simpson, the secular British dethroned him for wanting to marry a Roman Catholic!” These people come and lecture to us on the virtues of secularism! We must take their opinion with more than a pinch of salt. I say if we don‟t integrate Kashmir, and lose it, this very world opinion will call us fools. To formulate policies on the basis of the world opinion will be like repeating the story of the old man, his son and his donkey. Q : Do you think a Sikkim style status for Kashmir Valley will work? Some people think that Kashmiris do not really want to go to Pakistan; that will be their undoing. A : It will not work. It is not working well even in Sikkim too. It was said of the Sindhi Muslim also that he was not communal, and that he did not want Pakistan. But all the same he voted for the creation of Pakistan. There is therefore no reason to believe that this Sikkim status for Kashmir will not be a half-way house to Pakistan. We should entertain no illusions in this regard. Sheikh Abdullah himself was willing to accede to Pakistan. He did not, only because Mr. Jinnah did not accept his terms! Q : How do you view the ceasefire line in Kashmir? A : If you say that Kashmir is ours, the portion of Kashmir which is in the hands of Pakistan should be taken back. A prominent leader is saying that we should give away part of Aksai Chin to China and make friends with China, in order to face Pakistan. The same gentleman had advocated the giving away of Kashmir to Pakistan during the time of Chinese aggression. Just imagine, if this process of giving away a part of our country whenever either of the country invades us continues, what will be our fate? Where would we be?
- 7. Q : Either in Pakistan or China! A : We will be in the bellies of the fish in the vast Indian Ocean or Arabian Sea! Therefore a line has to be drawn somewhere. That line was drawn in 1947 by creating Pakistan. But Pakistan has not cared for the so-called „international boundary‟. It continues to violate it. That should not be tolerated. It should be taught a lesson. Q : One of our esteemed leaders has said that our stand on Kashmir has been wrong always. According to him we should view the problem in the light of Junagadh and Hyderabad. In the case of the above two, the people, i.e., Hindus being in a majority opted to join Bharat, whereas the ruler, a Muslim, wanted to accede to Pakistan. Then we supported the cause of the people and ultimately people’s wish was made to win. In the same way we should view the case of Kashmir and give it away to Pakistan as it is having a majority of Muslims. Surely this argument appears quite logical. A : But the fact is, the people‟s wish was opposed by the rulers in Junagadh and Hyderabad. Whereas in Kashmir, the National Conference, the major political party, and its Constituent Assembly which was the representative body of the entire people had unequivocally decided to join Bharat. The ruler also opted for Bharat. Therefore there is no question of any rift between the wishes of the people and the ruler. And the question of joining Pakistan did not arise at all. Q : What about the earlier resolution of UNO that there should be plebiscite in Kashmir if need be? A : Where is the need now? Definitely we do not need it. The prerequisite for plebiscite such as withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the occupied Kashmir etc., have not been met with. Secondly they in UNO have kept all their resolutions in cold storage all these years. They have not tried to implement them. Under such circumstances, they have no right to discuss other matters. I have a definite charge against the UNO. The observers of UNO are there in Kashmir. In their presence the infiltrators have entered Kashmir. What was their duty? What did they do? Did they name them? General Nimmo has told that he knew that armed men have entered Kashmir. But nothing was done to check them. In such circumstances you cannot expect justice from that body. Q : After all, it is not a judicial body. It is a political body. A : Yes. It is not only a judicial body, but an organization formed by the big nations to serve their political interests. Q : Do you see anything new in the recent declaration of Sheikh Abdullah that he does not question the Constitution about Kashmir?
- 8. A : He has said this many years back also and has gone back upon his words. What is the use of believing what he says today unless he proves to be consistent? That is our difficulty. He can retract himself or change or say whatever he likes, in one place one thing and in another place another thing. He has said we have to believe him, but he must be believable! Kashmir: Islamic Territory Vs Democracy As Indian Armed Forces were driving the invaders out, the idealist Nehru, the then Prime Minister, in consultation with the Governor General Lord Mount Batten, decided to take the matter to the UNO. On 31st December 1947 he, in his idealism, also offered plebiscite in the U. Kashmir; although legally and morally India was not bound to do so. Believing in the ideals of democracy, Nehru had offered this so that the people of Kashmir could decide their destiny themselves. Other nations and people may find it difficult to believe that how could a nation ever be so unselfish (foolish?) so as to leave a „heaven on earth‟ for the sake of an abstract ideal. As a proof of India‟s faith in idealism, may I offer the example of Bangladesh? India sacrificed heavily, both men and material, in getting Bangladesh liberated from the fanatic Pakistan; and then left it entirely free for Bangladeshis to rule their country. As it turned out, this was not in the interest of liberal Bangladeshis because soon the fanatic elements murdered the Father of Bangladesh, and militarily took control of the new-born nation. Bringing the subject back to Kashmir, on 1st January 1948 Nehru unilaterally declared ceasefire, which was not reciprocated by Pakistan. All such actions should leave no doubt in any body‟s mind about India‟s intention which was and is that Kashmir should have genuine democracy. But POK continues to be occupied by Pakistan, and J&K is trembling under Pak supported terrorism. Non-violence : Still An Impracticality? Today we can easily blame Nehru for being impractical, but let us see the psychological environment at that time in India. India was feeling highly elated for having earned its freedom through non-violence, though at the cost of immense sacrifice of human lives and suffering perpetrated by British Power. This was the first successful major non-violent revolution in the world. It may be worth noting that Jinnah and his Party „Muslim League‟ had not sacrificed anything, thus they got Pakistan for nothing. At the time of partition, while the populations were transferring themselves from one to the other nation, there was terrible violence almost all over the undivided India. In this inhuman massacre of innocent peoples, Hindus had suffered very much more than the Muslims. This was so because a significant number of Hindus were influenced by the principle of non-violence; and Gandhi went to areas, where Muslims were getting the bad taste of their own medicine, and pacified violent Hindus. Nothing like this happened in Pakistan, on the contrary Pak Government helped the violent Muslims who were killing Hindus. The Muslim League had asked for a separate
- 9. Muslim nation from secular India, because they were driven by hatred for Hindus. Hindus did not hate Muslims otherwise how could they welcome and invite Muslims to join the non- violent „Freedom Movement‟ led by Mahatma Gandhi. Obviously a large portion of Muslims had faith in the Hindu‟s „tolerance‟ and in the secularism of India, and they preferred to stay in India rather than go to Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world. Nehru thought that both legally and morally Kashmir belongs to India, therefore UNO would do the justice, and another major problem would be solved non-violently. And thus India would set an example for promoting non-violence in the violent world. Vested Interest of Britain and USA Obviously Nehru had not understood British machinations against India. British were extremely unhappy to leave their mine of gold – India – and naturally were not friendly to India. They had no desire that India should make technological progress for they very badly needed India to remain a market for British goods, without which they would lose the economic leadership of the world. Unfortunately, in the Kashmir crisis, the US not only supported its long time ally Britain but also had an axe to grind itself. It needed a useful base for its forces against USSR, and Pakistan was suitable from all angles for the purpose. Some flimsy mistakes like dotting of i‟s and cutting of t‟s etc were found in the „Instrument of Accession‟ which was signed by Hari Singh, and already accepted by the legal authority – Governor General of India – Lord Mount Batten. Consequently U. Kashmir was not accepted as a part of India although, based on its confession, Pakistan was declared an aggressor by the UNCIP, and was asked to vacate its aggression on 13th August 194812 . Pakistan has never complied with that resolution and yet has continuously got support of the UK and the USA. After a long time, on 1st January 1949 a formal ceasefire was signed between Pakistan and India. Plebiscite : Pakistan’s Phobia Almost one year after Nehru‟s offer of plebiscite, the UNCIP, on 5th January 1949 passed a resolution which stated : “The question of accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided by the democratic method of free and impartial plebiscite.” Pakistan did not vacate its aggression as agreed by it (Pakistan) and also as stipulated in the UN Resolution of 13th August, 1948. This would have then enabled India to vacate its forces to permit free and impartial plebiscite. As Pakistan was deliberately violating the said UN Resolution, the hope for the plebiscite was diminishing. Therefore in June 1949 Sheikh Abdullah13, the most popular and important leader of J&K, declared that, “We the people of J&K have thrown our lot with Indian people not in the heat of passion or a moment of despair, but by a deliberate choice. The union of our people has been fused by the community of ideals and common sufferings in the cause of freedom.” Pakistan Attacks India In 1961-62 India had suffered heavily with a war against China. Pakistan thought that it could take advantage of this weakness. Despite the mutually agreed ceasefire under the auspices of UNO, Pakistan attacked India in winter of 1965, but got beaten. (As per the Agreement of Tashkent (1962), Pakistan got all its territories inclusive of POK back which were won by
- 10. India in the war.) In 1971 West Pakistan not only refused the legal and moral right to democratically elected Mujib-ur-Rahman of East Pakistan to become the President of Pakistan but also attacked it and committed most inhuman atrocities on citizens of East Pakistan. As a result East Pakistan rebelled, and with the help from India became a new Nation – Bangladesh. (India not only defeated Pakistan badly but also arrested 91000 Pakistani soldiers.) It should be noted that Pakistan was formed on the basis of hatred against Hindus, and on the faith that their religion would keep them united. Result is there for every one to see. In 1972, an agreement was signed between India and Pakistan, in which both nations agreed to respect the line of ceasefire till the issue gets finally resolved. Having lost three wars to India, Pakistan, from early eighties, started sending terrorists in to Kashmir and brain washing the tolerant Kashmiri Muslims, and murdering Hindus, destroying Hindu temples, killing soldiers and police personnel of J&K. Aircrafts were hijacked. Innocent people all over India were killed by the terrorists – some of the terrorists are Kashmiri, some Pakistani and some even from other Islamic countries. Brilliant But Foolhardy Attack on Kargil During winter land around most of the „Line of Control‟ (LOC) gets buried under heavy snow. After Simala Agreement it was expected that Pakistan would respect the LOC, and for many years Pakistan did appear to be doing so. In winters extremely harsh conditions prevail in LOC areas; e.g. Dras near Kargil is the second coldest inhabited place in the world with temperatures going below -50 degrees C. Therefore, normally, in winters the surveillance on LOC is reduced to minimal, by either side. Taking advantage of this fact, Pakistan made a brilliant plan to attack Kargil with maximum surprise. In a few winters they entered the area beyond the LOC in to India, near Kargil, and built bunkers, stored arms and ammunitions, and other logistics materials. And when they thought they could win Kargil they attacked in April-May 1999, before the summer working conditions. Indian side was really caught napping in their blankets. Indian Forces also could not have come in numbers because the only road to Kargil should have remained snow bound, but for an early summer. A question naturally arises as to how Indian Intelligence could fail so miserably! This question is relevant to understand the Kashmir Problem. Indian Intelligence Failure During winter, apart from radio and air reconnaissance, the main source of intelligence is Bakerwals and Gujjars living in those areas. They gladly convey the news of Pak infiltration. To counter this, first, the dominating and separatist Sunni Muslims of Kargil area convinced the Governments of J&K and India that they be separated from the Buddhist-dominated Ladaakh administrative control, and be made an administrative region under Kashmir. In Ladaakh area Muslims are not in majority, but in Kargil they are in absolute majority. Then Pakistan deliberately increased bombing in that area, and at the same time the local Sunnis increased persecuting the non-Muslims and non-sympathetic Bakerwals and Gujjars etc to drive them away from that area. So almost no Bakerwals and Buddhists were there to inform about the infiltration, and thus total surprise could be achieved. That is why this plan was brilliant. It is another story as to how bravery, strategy and superior tactics of Indian Defence Forces could repulse the brilliant attack, albeit at a great sacrifice of both man and material.
- 11. Here again the impractical idealism of Government of India could be seen in their order to the Defence Forces to not cross the LOC, even while defending their area. The impractical strain of idealism in Indians costs them heavily, every time. The surreptitious attack on Kargil Sector beyond the „Line of Control‟, which was accepted in the 1971 Simala Agreement by Pakistan as inviolable, again confirms that promises made by and agreements accepted by Pakistan are unreliable. Islamic Terrorism After fighting three wars, Pakistan has realized that they cannot win a war with India. Therefore they have chosen the most inhuman way – terrorism with support from international Islamic terrorist organizations. This terrorism has not only caused heavy losses to material, military personnel but also more importantly it has dented the tolerant psyche of Hindus. All Hindus have been driven out from Kashmir after a planned chain of murders of many prominent Hindus. This low intensity war is causing a very heavy financial burden to Indian exchequer and thus obstructing the progress that India, specially J&K, could otherwise make. The Hindu-Muslim riots are increasing in India in frequency and intensity. Now Hindus react very sharply and violently to a riot started by Muslims. Gujarat is a case in example. But what is still remarkable is that burning of Hindus at Godara in Gujarat has resulted in a violent reaction in Gujarat only, the rest of India not only maintained its peace but also condemned the violent reaction. Earlier in History, by and large Hindus had not been reacting in such a rage lasting for so long. Now the trend of intolerance is such that even Hindus feel sad. Security Personnel Vs Terrorists The fate of military and police personnel safeguarding lives of Kashmiris, and maintaining law and order there would elicit sympathy from any human being. Though armed, they are easily visible and are easy victims. Terrorists are also armed but are not visible for they do not look different from the locals; therefore they always manage a surprise attack. At the same time security personnel are expected to be protecting the locals and not shoot unless reasonably sure of the terrorists. They cannot be trigger happy, and the terrorists can be as trigger happy as they like. The terrorists also kill the locals in sufficient numbers to terrify them in to co-operation. Can the Human rights Commission not see that the dice is heavily loaded against the Security Forces.? They invariably had been blaming Indian security, and seldom Pakistan Government and its terrorists. The loading of the dice can be easily seen in the ratio of terrorists killed to the security personnel killed. This ratio was very disappointing for a long time – about 1 security personnel for 3 terrorists. Since 9.11 this has improved slightly14 to 1 to 4. It is beyond my comprehension as to why western media is so sympathetic to Pakistan. Is it because media is not serving the truth but its own agenda, whatever it may be? Then should media command the high respect that it gets? Or is truth so difficult to judge? And, why does Pakistan invariably gain by a third party intervention. Is it because of under-dog sympathy syndrome? Not really, because even when the democracy in East Pakistan was being trampled under the military boots of West Pakistan, the US was sympathetic to West Pakistan. (After every war Pakistan did not have to pay any penalty for its aggression. It got back money and
- 12. equipment in aid from oil rich nations, and USA etc.) Ultimately despite being an aggressor, it is illegally occupying a third of the U. Kashmir. Was the idealism practiced by Nehru therefore impractical? What conclusions can be drawn? 1. The U.N. has proved incompetent in finding a solution to the Kashmir problem. The UN has, inadvertently, encouraged terrorism. Terrorism and drug trafficking help each other in increasing misery in the world. 2. The problem of J&K is religious expansionism through terrorism, and not the so called, rebellion against an oppressive and occupational Government. Whereas the reverse may be true in POK. 3. Ideal of non-violence is not yet practicable in the world. 4. Religion does not guarantee unity of any nation, unless the religion is liberal. 5. In a democratic nation terrorism should have no place, but in an open and democratic world terrorism still works. Terrorism can kill a long established culture of harmony and love among people of different religions as in J&K. Having suffered firsthand, the most powerful nation USA is now trying its best to eradicate terrorism, and it may or may not succeed. Successful fight against terrorism demands international cooperation, which US is in a position to get. 6. India is unable to stop terrorism in J&K so long as it is being supported to the hilt by Pakistan through money, arms and ammunition, military training and the most prolific and cheap breeding ground for terrorists viz. madarasaas. 7. Terrorism will not give Pakistan what it wants but will continue to increase misery and losses of innocent humans in J&K. This frustration may make Pakistan bold to wage a full fledged nuclear war. If terrorism is not stopped in J&K, danger of a nuclear war is very real and imminent. – Vishwa Mohan Tiwari, Air Vice Marshal (Retd) May 14, 2002 How Azad is “Azad Kashmir” If you want to study the situation in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and cannot go to even the minuscule part of this region designated as `Azad Kashmir‟, the best place to go to is England. Bradford, Birmingham, Nottingham, Luton, Slough and Southall are perhaps even better sources of information about the POK than Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, Bagh Rawalakot and Kotli.
- 13. For the Kashmiris living in Britain breathe free air that it not much available in the so-called Azad Kashmir. Even if you so much as apply for a job you have to sign an affidavit saying you believe in the ideology of “Kashmir banega Pakistan” (Kashmir will become Pakistan). I happened to be in England on the eve of recent election in `Azad Kashmir‟. Meeting `Azad‟ Kashmiris in Britain proved revealing. The politically active among them have organised themselves on the lines of politics back home. Nearly all political organisations and ideologies are represented. They all appear to be working against India and, except JKLF, pro-Pakistan. Their activities range from the ridiculous to the more sober. I come across some Tehrik-e- Kashmir activists in Birmingham attempting to impose a boycott of Tilda rice supposedly imported from India. They are aware that India is far too big and powerful a country with a vast capacity to take losses to be bothered with such nonsense. But they think this helps them spread hatred against India. On the other hand they are making a serious and somewhat successful attempt at lobbying political parties, media and bureaucracy to convince them of the genuineness of their case against what they call Indian occupation of Kashmir and serious human rights violations. But this is a superficial impression. Beneath the surface, most of them are disgusted with Pakistan and many of them find India‟s handling of its part of Kashmir, despited the obvious difficulties and current hostilities, more commendable. Several people, for instance, mentioned that while India has respected Kashmir‟s age-old practice of not allowing outsiders to settle down in the valley, Pakistan has allowed over 28,000 Afghan families to settle down and fleece the local populace in the name of Jihad. These Afghans are even more exploitative that the Hindu baniya ever was, they point out. The comparisons are endless. Kashmiris in the valley are better educated and better skilled. They have their own university with medical and engineering colleges. Some of us, particularly Mirpuris may be more prosperous, they say, but that is only because we managed to come to England when we were virtually thrown out of Pakistan as we lost our livelihood in the wake of the construction of Mangla Dam. The reference to Mangla Dam always brings out either complete silence in pro-Pakistan circles or vociferous protest from those who are not so particular about living with Pakistan. This Dam is said to supply 65% of the electricity needs of Pakistan, but the so-called Azad Kashmir does not get any royalty. Pakistan‟s Water and Power Development Agency (WAPDA) is estimated to be earning over Rs. 50 crores from the electricity produced at Mangla, thought the total budget of the Azad Kashmir is in the vicinity of Rs. 10 crores. The most talked about issue, of course, is that of Northern Areas which has been virtually swallowed by Pakistan Army. It comes in the news periodically only when there are Shia- Sunni clashes in the area of firing by the Army to quell anti-government demonstrations. In a historic judgment when a Kashmiri chief justice of the High Court dared to say a couple of years ago that the area was a part of Kashmir and had been illegally occupied by Pakistan Army, he instantly became a hero. Similar enthusiasm was shown by the Kashmiris towards Raja Mumtaz Hussain Rathore, the last PPP `Prime Minister‟ of the so-called Azad Kashmir,
- 14. who started taking up the issue of Northern Areas followed his dismissal and detention by the last Nawaz Sharif government. This leads any discussion in the direction of almost complete denial of democracy to the so- called Azad Kashmir. While India has at least one or two free and fair elections in the valley, notably in 1977 and 1983, the Pakistani Establishment has dismissed and installed governments of `Azad Kashmir‟ at will. The only party that has not been able to do so is Ms. Benazir Bhutto‟s Pakistan People Party as it is not considered a part of Establishment even when in power. It is hardly surprising in view of such perceptions of the Pakistani Kashmiris that they throw out Sardar Qayyoom‟s obscurantist Muslim Conference which has ruled them for most of the last half a century at the first available opportunity. They did that in 1990 and they have done that now. Sardar Qayyoom‟s protestations of massive rigging by the PPP government in Islamabad is unbelievable. All that she had to do to win elections there was not to concede Sardar Qayyoom‟s demand of allowing the Army to conduct elections. Sardar Abdul Qayyoom Khan‟s ruling Muslim Conference has been virtually wiped out in the small part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) designated as “Azad Kashmir” where generally farcical elections are held intermittently to buttress the fiction of its Azadi. He has blamed massive rigging for his defeat. This is predictably music to Indian ears. We have ourselves faced similar allegations in international as well as sections of national media in regard to recent elections in our part of Kashmir. But by playing up Sardar Qayyoom‟s incredible claims in our media and in the diplomatic circuit, we are simply playing in the hands of Pakistan‟s right wing obscurantists, Army and the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). Indian media pundits and bureaucrats may have valid reasons to regard the ruling Pakistan People Party headed by Ms Benazir Bhutto and even its so-called Azad Kashmir branch as communal or obscurantist and anti-India. Obviously they must have more impeccable sources of information and intelligence. But the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir have been consistently told since the formation of PPP itself that it is secular, anti-Islam, anti- Pakistan and pro-India. The Pakistani media, the Sardar Qayyoom government, indeed the entire Pakistani Establishment has indulged in this propaganda on the largest possible scale for years. And yet they have chosen to give a massive mandate to this supposedly secular, progressive, pro-India party. Whether or not the PPP is secular and pro-India is not the issue. The fact that despite this widespread perception, the people of this piece of POK have chosen to elect it again must mean something to us in India. There is so clearly some message in this massive PPP victory and we should try to understand and interpret it in this light. Our hatred for Pakistan seems to have blinded us and we are reacting mindlessly. Sardar Qayyoom‟s party has ruled the so-called Azad Kashmir (I prefer to use this term rather that the popular POK, as this area is actually less than half of the POK) for most of the last half a century. He has himself ruled as President as well as Prime Minister for decades. he retains the love and affection of the military-bureaucratic and feudal-industrialist complex that rules Pakistan as ever. He is the darling of the obscurantist elements in the Pakistani
- 15. Opposition, despite his son Sardar Ateeq‟s shenanigans. he had himself come to power in the present instance through a farcical election following an undemocratic and immoral, though constitutional and legal, dismissal and even detention of the last Prime Minister Raja Mumtaz Hussain Rathore who headed a duly elected People‟s Party government. The rule in Pakistan is that the movement changes hands in Islamabad, the so-called Azad Kashmir government is dismissed and a new one installed through a farce of an election unless this happens to be a Muslim Conference government headed by Sardar Qayyoom. Following this glorious tradition the last Muslim league government headed by Mr. Nawaz Sharif had dismissed Mr. Mumtaz Rathore, detained him and installed Sardar Qayyoom. But Ms. Benazir Bhutto‟s PPP has never been allowed to follow this tradition. When she came to power a couple of years ago, she was widely expected to reinstall Mumtaz Rathore. She would not have required to rig the elections to do so. For reasons that we will discuss later the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir are fed up with the Sardar Dynasty. Indeed Ms. Bhutto is not capable of rigging elections there or anywhere else. Ms. Bhutto came to power for the first time having won elections that followed President Zia- ul-Haq‟s death in August 1988, she was told that as chairperson of the Kashmir Council, she had the power to dissolve the Kashmir Assembly order fresh elections. She was considering the popular demand for dismissal of the Muzaffarabad government. But Sardar Qayyoom criticised Ms. Bhutto‟s policy of normalisation with India “to undo the Islamic ideology and weaken the Pakistan Army”. He wrote to President Guhlam Ishaq Khan: “We will not allow a pro-India government in Azad Kashmir,” He made it clear that he would not accept the electoral verdict if the PPP won. And despite all the pressure from the people of Pakistan Occupied `Azad‟ Kashmir and her party she could not topple the Sardar government. Sardar Qayyoom completed his tenure in 1990. Informed people are aware that Pakistan is ruled by a troika. A Pakistan Prime Minister can only do things with the concurrence of Washington and the local Establishment which includes the Army, ISI, Bureaucracy, Business, Feudal and Obscurantist elements. Ms. Bhutto‟s PPP was allowed to stay in power because for a variety of reasons not germane to this discussion she was for the moment begin tolerated by the two other parts of the troika. But she had very obvious limits to her power. She had enough powers thought to ensure that elections in the so-called Azad Kashmir are not rigged by any part of the troika including the Pakistani Establishment which would have loved to see Sardar Qayyoom back in power. All that she needed to do was not to concede Sardar Qayyoom‟s persistent demand to allow the Army to conduct the elections. Why did Ms. Bhutto allow Sardar Qayyoom during her second term to continue for so long and complete his full term again is thus no mystery. She was under intense pressure from the Sardar government. But she continued to be so incensed with Mr. Nawaz Sharif who had earlier dismissed and detained the PPP Prime Minister Raja Mumtaz Rathore that she was seriously considering taking them on in this case. This was when, according to my sources in
- 16. PPP, a new element entered into the picture which proved decisive and finally saved the Sardar government. President Laghari of Pakistan visited India and met a delegation of Kashmir valley‟s pro- Pakistan leaders. This delegation pleaded with him to persuade Ms. Bhutto not to dismiss Sardar Qayyoom. Their argument was that in the absence of Sardar Qayyoom the network supporting militancy in the valley would be disturbed. A PPP government there can obviously not be trusted to support the right wing network. Their second argument was even more important. Islamabad dismissing a duly elected Muzaffarabad government without any apparent reason, thought constitutionally valid and legal, would be clearly immoral and undemocratic that it would weaken their case that Kashmir‟s identity and autonomy would better protected by Pakistan that it is with India. Even though Pakistan has a history of such undemocratic dismissals, this particular dismissal at the height of militancy in the Valley would prove disastrous, so pleaded Hurriyat leaders. Despite all his sophistication and persuasive arguments, my sources tell me, it took President Laghari two and a half hours of intense pleading to dissuade Ms. Bhutto from dismissing Sardar Qayyoom‟s government. One wonders if the pro-Pakistan Hurriyat leaders in the valley are now pleading with Sardar Qayyoom not to accuse PPP government in Islamabad and his own government in Muzaffarabad of massive rigging in the elections. For, this too weakens their case of Kashmir‟s accession with Pakistan. It brings to light the farcical nature of `Azadi‟ in the so- called Azad Kashmir. Of course, even this so-called Azadi is not available to the hapless people of the majority area of the Pakistan occupied Kashmir designated as Northern Areas. The vast areas of Gilgit and Baltistan have simply vanished from the face of the earth as far as the Pakistan Constitution and other legal documents are concerned, though until 1954, Pakistan used to supply maps that showed these territories as a part of Kashmir. The Muslim Conference alleging massive rigging is indeed ridiculous. The People‟s Party massive mandate in Azad Kashmir represents not so much its own popularity as it articulates the disgust of the `Azad‟ Kashmiris with Pakistani Establishment. The Muslim Conference is seen as this Establishment‟s local representative despite its regional character. Ironically, the People‟s Party Kashmir unit is seen as more representative of the regional aspirations despite this Party‟s all-Pakistan character. The plight of Azad Kashmiris calls for a separate write-up. What we can say here is that economic factors like lack of development of any industry, communication facilities, exploitation of Mangla dam for providing electricity to 65 per cent of Pakistan without any compensation, no local university, no local bank, no new bridges over the river Jhelum and so on do weight heavily on the minds of `Azad‟ Kashmiris, what they resent most is their virtual slave status in the Constitution, new tensions in the wake of settlement of over 28,000 Afghan families, militant training camps and the inevitable rise of obscurantism due to almost uninterrupted half-a-century rule of the Muslim Conference. They have been told for years now that the accession of Kashmir valley to Pakistan is round the corner. But neither the proud Suddhan tribals, nor the wealthy Mirpuris (most of them have relatives in England)
- 17. are prepared to accept the inevitable domination of the better educated and numerically stronger `hatos‟ as they contemptuously refer to the Kashmiris of the valley in case Kashmir is united. It is easier for an Indian to sympathise with you, regardless of the folly of your pursuit. With your emaciated body, you are the only Gandhi-like figure on the kashmir horizon. Despite your militant past, the country appeared to have accepted your protestations of peade when you renounced violence. Released from captivity, you received the best media attention any Kashmiri leader had got, perhaps with the solitary exception so Shabir Shah. But when you went on fast for three days in Delhi nevently to focus attention on human rights violations in Kashmir, there was hardly an mediaperson or realy any one else around. I wonder if you have been wondering why. I wanted to ask you-what are doing with Hurriyat, Yasin Saheb?-when I visited you on the second day of your fast. But you were in no dondition to converse. You have been taking so much on yourslef, despite ill-health. Also, the question would have been a trifle awkward with so many Hurriyat leaders, including Chairman Mirwaiz Omar Farooq surrounding you. You and Shabir Shah are the two prominent leaders who are associated with peaceful means of protest as well as what is called the third option, independence from both India and Pakistan. As other members of the Hurriyat Conference still stand for accession with Pakstan your association with Hurriyat has always been rather intriguing. Now this question has acquired some urgency with the recent declarations of the Hurriyat chief during his recent trip abroad. At a news conference in Washington, he said: “No Third Option exists on Kashmir. All components of All-Parties Hurriyat Conference, despite their diversity have accepted this. The Kashmiris have to decide in a plebiscite whether they should opt for India or Pakistan.” Hurriyat‟s total and rather desperate dependence on Pakistan become even more pronounced during the last SAARC foreign ministers‟ conference in Delhi. Senior Hurriyat leaders like Umar Farooq, Sayed Ali Shah Geelani adn Professor Abdul Ghani met the visiting Pakistani foreign minister Sahabazda Yaqub Khan and criticised Islamabad‟s efforts to improve trade relations with India. They felt Pakistna‟s business interests might overshadow the political aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Since Pakistan seemed keen to remove trade barriers with India under the SAARC agenda, they feared it might ultimately not give that much importance to the Kashmir issue. That Pakistan was getting ready to dump the Kashmiris and perhaps concentrate on improving its battered economy had become clear to me, Yasin Shaeb, several months ago. You couldn‟t have forgotten what happened in Leicester, U.K. last August. Expartriate Kashmiri leader Dr. Ayyub Thukar had organised a conference of Kashmiri leaders from India Pakistan as well. No one turned up from Pakistan. This became particularly embarrassing for the organisers because two people arrived even from India – the present writer and Mr. Subodh Kant Sahai. Finally, Islamabad, probably after much coaxing and cajoling, instructed
- 18. its deputy High Commissioner in London to attent the conference who was able to reach there only for the last session. One can hardly blame Pakistan, though, for this state of affairs. In the case of proxy wars this is almost routine. This is what Shah of Iran did with Mulla Barzani‟s Kurdish secessionist movement in Iraq. This is what Saddam Hussain does with Iranian Kurdish secessionists in Iran. Support them, use them, sell them and dump them is virtually the norm. As Pakistani pro-occupation with tis impending political and economic disintegration grows, Hurriyat is bound to grow even more desperate. It is bound to shout louder and louder from rooftops higher and higher ist protestations of loyality to Pakistan. It is for leaders like you, Yasin Saheb, to think if Hurriyat is correctly representing your point of view. Shabbir Shah has proved smarter. He has manoeuvered himself out of Hurriyat at the right time. I wonder if you would reconsider your position vis-s-vis Hurriyat before it is too late for you to extricate yourself out of the mess that Hurriyat is beginning to sense it has got itself into. Mujahid Sherwani With the heroic tale of the martyr of „New Kashmir‟, we enter the modern period of Kashmir, ushered after Independence, when the Valley, like the rest of northern India, went through a blood bath. A dedicated and active worker of the National Conference, Maqbool Sherwani, who had had a rub with Mr. Jinnah at Baramulla, his home town, faced the fury of the tribal invaders from Pakistan in the same town. After performing exploits of military strategy, he fell in the hands of the tribals on the fateful day, 7th November 1947, when they literally crucified him. Sherwani, a martyr to „New Kashmir‟, is not dead. His blood liberated the soil on which it sealed for all time the silken bonds of unity binding the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of Kashmir – and the rest of India. India came to the rescue of the people of Kashmir when the State was invaded by tribal hordes on the 22nd of October, 1947. Airborne Indian troops landed on the Srinagar aerodrome in the nick of time. The tribal and other Pakistan-inspired invaders were routed from the suburbs of Srinagar by the Indian troops and the National Militia of Kashmir. The raiders were driven out of Baramulla on the 8th of November, and later, pushed out of the Valley. Speaking to the people of Baramulla on the 12th November, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru and Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah paid glowing tributes to the deeds of valour and consequent martyrdom of Mir Maqbool Sherwani, the hero of Baramulla. In several of his post-prayer speeches, Mahatma Gandhi movingly referred to Sherwani, who fought and died for his country, defending the great principle of intercommunal unity. The story of Sherwani became a beacon to the upholders of secular tradition of Kashmir and the rest of India.
- 19. Ever since the founding of the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference in 1939 by Sheikh Abdullah, Maqbool Sherwani had been a staunch supporter of the national cause of the forty lakhs of Kashmiris who demanded freedom from the Dogra monarchy. Sherwani was then a young man in his early twenties. He actually started taking part in the struggle of freedom when he was eighteen years old. He had seen much of the world about him even as a boy. Several times he had trekked to India whither he had run away from home. His mother died when he was a young child. His wife died in childbirth in the second year of their marriage. Sherwani was twenty-seven years at the time (1939), the year of the founding of the National Conference. He was free to do what he liked. He chose to serve his people. The choice was easy, for his doting father carried a petty trade business in Barmulla and he did not have to work for a living. As an active member of the National Conference, Sherwani popularised the demand for popular government and the necessity of communal harmony in the district of Baramulla, the goal defined by Sher-i-Kashmir Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. He was guided by the older political worker of Baramulla, Sufi Mohammed Akbar. Both made the masses of the District politically conscious. Whenever the Wazir Wazarat (as the Deputy Commissioner was called) oppressed the rural folk or a corrupt revenue officer extorted bribes, or, a forest official exploited his authority, Maqbool Sherwani would stand up against the bureaucratic bully. He would organise the erstwhile oppressed and awed people and stage non-violent demonstrations; invariably, he and the people won their point. Earlier, in his stormy boyhood, while Sherwani was the student of a middle school, he led his friends in folk dance and drama and other activities. That training was an asset to him. He became an effective sneaker and he could sway and control large crowds. Defending his countrymen against the excesses of the bureaucracy, he would lead agitations of the aggrieved people. He was arrested several times. His being guided by the principles of the National Conference, as defined and popularised by „Sher-i-Kashmir‟, provided him the right lead in every crisis-almost every time he scored a victory. Sherwani had little respect for leaders who did not agree with the programme of the National Conference. When Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah visited Kashmir and spoke at Baramulla on his „two-nation‟ theory Sherwani forced him to come down from the platform, and this stopped his speech. The Muslim Conferencites, who had convened the meeting, were taken by surprise, and pursued Sherwani. To escape the fury of the mob, Sherwani jumped from the Baramulla bridge into the Jhelum and dived into the deep, eddying water, to reappear hundreds of feet away! Sherwani coordinated the programme of the Baramulla branch of National Conference with its parent body whose headquarters was at Srinagar. By tonga or lorry, on cycle or motor cycle, and, sometimes, on foot, Sherwani shuttled between Srinagar and Baramulla. When the momentous session of the National Conference was held at Sopore in September 1944 and the session ratified „New Kashmir‟, the people‟s charter for freedom and self-government, Sherwani was indubitably the most active worker. He was well acquainted with Sopore; he
- 20. knew almost every peasant by face. They co-operated with him in his round-the-clock work on the Reception Committee. At the session Sherwani heard and saw his beloved leader, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as well as Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and many other Congress leaders. He dedicated himself, with renewed zeal, to the service of the land in order to usher „New Kashmir‟, which received the sanction of the people in the open session. Thanks to his fond father, Sherwani could devote himself whole-heartedly to politics. The struggle for full responsible government, as envisaged in the national document, entitled „New Kashmir‟, assumed several forms. In 1945 the National Conference cooperated with the Government when certain reforms towards some popular representation in the Government were conceded. The Government‟s climbdown, however, soon turned out to be a tactial manoeuvre as the power was concentrated in the hands of Prime Minister R.C. Kak who was the nominee of the Maharaja. The National Conference, therefore, with drew its representative from the Government. The Kak regime there upon tightened its stranglehold over the people. The National Conference leaders sounded the clarion call of „Quit Kashmir‟ agitation on the eve of the Cabinet Mission in India during May 1946. The Government retaliated harshly. An era of repression was ushered. The Conference leaders, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and others, including Sherwani, were placed behind the bars. Public opinion in India, as voiced by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and other Congress leaders, was against the repressive policy of the Government. Mahatma Gandhi visited Kashmir. The Kashmir Government relented. In September 1946 the detenus were released unconditionally. Again, there was a stalemate. The Maharaja of Kashmir was sitting on the fence, undecided whether the State should accede to India or Pakistan, adter the partition. A new and realistic policy was not announced at the right time after the exit of Kak as the Prime Minister. The hesitant policy of the Kashmir Government gave an initial advantage to the Pakistan-abetted tribesmen who came via North-Western Frontier Province of Pakistan and invaded Kashmir in October 1947. Situated on the border, Muzaffarabad was the first town to fall. Like leaders of all branches of the National Conference, Sherwani responded to the call of the National Conference whose leaders under the clarion call of Sheikh Abdullah had anticipated the trouble to raise a body of 10,000 National Home Guards fn the Valley. As is apparent already, the story of Maqbool Sherwani cannot be extricated from that of the National Conference. He had identified himself with the activities of the party to which he owed selfless allegiance. While he was engaged with the organisation of the National Home Guards, he heard the disturbing news of the fall of Muzaffarabad. He witnessed panic spread in the town of Baramulla, as conflicting reports flew about the might and fury of the raiders. He spoke to the people at street corners and calmed their fears. The fifth columnists, were endeavouring to sabotage his efforts. Undeterred, Sherwani went on with his mission, working day and night at a hectic pace.
- 21. More disturbing news came about the lightning advance of the well-equipped raiders, who captured Uri and smaller towns The incursion of the hordes into Baramulla appeared imminent. But Sherwani did not lose his nerve in the hour of gloom. He left Baramulla for Srinagar on his motor cycle at the very last hour after he had personally attended to the safe evacuation of a large part of Hindu, Muslim and Sikh population who thus escaped the indiscriminate fury of the vandals. Sherwani conferred with the National Conference High Command. The leaders were alive to the peril to face which the National Home Guards and the National Militia had been raised. When the tottering machinery of the Maharaja‟s government failed, the leaders of the National Conference assumed the duties and powers of the Emergency Administration. The Headquarters were set up in the heart of the City. There was a keen element of precariousness in the situation. Nobody was sure of the morrow What happened to Baramulla might befall Srinagar any moment. The Government of India heeded in time the appeal for help of the Kashmiri leaders. Srinagar was saved; the Indian troops, aided and guided by the National Militia, did a heroic job. The raiders were driven away from the doors of the loveliest city of India, which they would faro have depredated. Relieved at the turn of events, intrepid Sherwani plunged in the fight against the enemy, who revelled in heinous forms of butchery and sadism to women and children. He resolved to fight them on the propaganda front too their slogan of „Holy War‟ was a camouflage for an orgy of loot and bloodshed. To stop their infiltration in outlying districts of Srinagar, Sherwani made hurricane tours of Ganderbal, Safapore, Sumbal and other smaller towns, and told the people what these monsters really stood for. To the people he reiterated the necessity of intercommunal harmony. He warned them that they must not give shelter or show mercy to the unholy invaders, comprising freebooters and marauders, sent on the imperialist errand of annexing Kashmir and enslaving her people, even as earlier aggressors in history had done. A glorious chapter of Sherwani‟s life commenced with this mission. It was the climax of a career of service to the country that will go down in the annals of Kashmir in letters of gold. Fearlessly, Sherwani ventured into Sopore, the devil‟s den, and nearby villages, where the tribal hordes had entrenched themselves. To hoodwink them, he carried aloft a Muslim League flag in his right hand and wore the blue crescent badge. He said to a leader of the tribesmen: “Wait not. March on. There is terrible communal trouble in the city of Srinagar. This is your opportunity to break in and set up your government in the Maharaja‟s Palace, on the banks of the famous Dal Lake. And, you‟ll have wine and women and gold!” He thus lured them to certain positions-as he had previously planned with the scouts of Indian troops and the National Militia-where they were shelled and bombarded by the Indian troops. This happened on 30th October, 1947, when Srinagar was in grave danger. There are different estimates of the number of raiders who concentrated in this manner at certain points and whom Sherwani sent to their deserved doom. Someplace it above two hundred. Be the figure what it may, suffice it to say, that bold Sherwani recklessly performed exploits of military strategy that contributed not a lithe towards saving Srinagar, and which
- 22. vie with those of well-known pies in the two world wars of this century. He saved the lives of not only the inhabitants of Srinagar but hundreds of others of his countrymen and Indian troops. How long could the lightning carrier of this youthful patriot last? Venturing into the bear‟s den once again, Sherwani fell into the hands of the tribesmen at Sumbal, a party of whom had laid waste the entire village. They had been looking for him for days. They had set a high price on his head-the fearless head of M.M. Sherwani. The uncouth captors manhandled Sherwani. He flinched not, complained not. Acting under the orders of one of their Amirs, they escorted Sherwani to Baramulla. He was produced before an Amir whom the „fifth columnists‟ had cited for the vendetta. “Tie the Kashmiri fellow to the verandah pillars”, shouted the Amir. Tied hand and foot, and feeling the ropes pressing him against the posts, and, staring at the street, Sherwani smilingly observed the Amir who sat in a chair by the roadside. Around the Amir, squatted or stood a platoon of the relentless, pitiless tribesmen, armed to the teeth. “You are Sherwani”, said the Amir, in a mocking tone. The tribesmen guffawed, gaping at the intrepid captive, whose demeanour and expression compelled attention. “I am Mir Maqbool Sherwani”, was the dauntless reply. “Your age?” “Thirty-five.” “We know much about you and your foul deeds,” thundered the Amir. “You have betrayed us. You are false to the holy cause of the Jehad, that we wage”. Softening a little, the Amir added, “You are a promising young man. You may live yet. We will forgive you if you forswear yourself and join us. As proof positive of your change of heart, you must tell us the secret position of the Militia and Indian troops in Shalteng and also show us the shortest route to the Srinagar aerodrome”. “What may 1 do first ?” asked Maqbool Sherwani. His voice was calm and confident. “Say Islam Zindabad and Hindu-Muslim-ittehad Murdabad ! No more fooling us now.” “No, that shall not be”, was the firm, tight-lipped reply of Sherwani, who was a rebel against reactionary authorities ever since his boyhood. “I only desire to say my last prayers”. “You will not offer prayers. You will say what we want you to say, or, we will make you to”, threatened the ferocious Amir. “No, hundred times No”, replied Sherwani. “I say Naya Kashmir Zindabad! Sher-i-Kashmir Zindabad!” “What are you waiting for?” the Amir questioned his men.
- 23. No sooner was this said than they started belabouring the helpless captive with butt ends of their rifles. He bled but winced not. The Amir who thought every Kashmiri to be a coward could not comprehend the tenacity of the prisoner. Set at naught, he said to one of his men, “This man is a traitor. Sever his nose and his tongue, if he still refuses.” Sherwani repeated “No” and said the Zindabads over again, before his nose and tongue were cut off. What did Kashmir‟s hero look like? The Amir wrote “Sherwani, the traitor, his punishment is death”, on a piece of paper in Urdu and had it pasted on the forehead of Sherwani. Suddenly and unaccountably, the Amir flew into a rage and commanded twenty-four of his men to stand to the position of a firing squad. “Fire and mark a crescent on the chest of the traitor,” commanded the Amir. A volley of shots did the fanatic chore. Our martyr, the hero of New Kashmir, breathed his last. He died a martyr‟s death on the cross, as it were. “Tie the ears of the traitor and his drooping head and arms straight to the posts so that every passer-by can see him,” was the last bark of the Amir before he left the spot. Little did the petty tyrant and his men realise that on the following day, i.e., 8th of November, 1947, they would be driven out like plagued rats from Baramulla. One of the first acts of the freed people was to reclaim the dead body of Mir Maqbool Sherwani and to bury it in the graveyard of Juma Masjid of the town with full military honours. Sheikh Abdullah, and the leaders of Kashmir and India, paid touching tributes to the memory of the martyr of Baramulla. Sherwani is not dead. He will never be. By his glorious sacrifices, he has sealed the silken bonds of amity that bind the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of Kashmir and the rest of India. The National Cultural front of the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference staged a Kashmiri-cum-Hindustani Play which depicted the heroic story of „Martyr of New Kashmir- the Mujahid who waged a „holy war‟ in the best sense of the word. A lifesize Portrait of Sherwani in the last pose was painted by the artists of the Front.