Kashmiri Pandits & Homeland : A Roadmap to Peace

Presented By Shailendra Aima in the House of Commons on June 14,1995
The greatest impediment towards arriving at definitive possibilities in resolving the Kashmir crisis is the idiom of popular discourse in which the issue has been addressed so far. As the new idiom has yet to emerge and guide the discourse, we may have to operate through the existing reference frameworks and do justice to the problem in its entirety.
The Kashmiri Pandits constitute a regional minority in a predominantly Muslim province of the Jammu and Kashmir state. This minority is face to face with a serious drawback in the Constitution of India as well as the political approaches which have developed in India since independence. And that is the recognition of region as the sub-national entity for sharing political power. Strangely, there are no conventional, institutional and constitutional mechanisms for affecting the effective participation of regional minorities in the poltico-administrative dispensation. Such a situation has a very serious disadvantage for the regional minorities in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The main regional majority groups in J&K are - Sunni Muslims in Kashmir valley, Buddhists in Ladakh region and Dogras in Jammu region. The main regional minority groups are - in Kashmir region, Kashmiri Pandits, Shias, Sikhs and the Gujjars; in Ladakh region, Argons who are basically Kashmiri Muslim settlers and the Ladakhi Shias who are indigenous, Dard Muslims inhabiting Dras area, Zanskari Buddhists in Kargil who inhabit Zanskar and Mulbek; and the Pagan groups who follow ancient type of Tibetan Bonism and inhabit Gorkan and BaIti region. In Jammu region Gujjars, Kashmiri speaking Muslims in Doda and adjoining Rajouri districts and the non-Gujar Muslims of Jammu province, constitute such regional minorities.
Out of these regional minorities some are in a position to elect their representatives to the legislative bodies of the state and hence to the politico­-administrative structure. But gross imbalances exist even in such processes, for example, Shias and Gujjars in spite of being able to send their representatives to the legislature get a far less share in the elections, compared to their numbers. The answer to imbalances can be traced to the Muslim precedence, particularly the Kashmiri Sunni variety, which has been established in J&K State since 1947.
The situation of Kashmiri Pandits takes a more critical turn as it is the only regional minority which is not living in a compact area. Towards the process of consolidating Kashmiri Sunni dominance in the valley, even a few constituencies in Kashmir, where some sizeable number of the Pandits was putting up, were delimited and diluted in such a way that not even a remote chance for the Pandits to elect their representative existed. The aforesaid background needs be visualised in the context of some other significant contours of the crisis, which are:
1. Kashmiri Pandits have been subjected to genocide and religious cleansing. It is an issue which cannot be undermined and has to be studied in its entirety, from genesis to its implications. The genocide is still continuing and there is an imperative necessity t0 fix responsibility for whatever has happened to this community during all these years.
2. Islamic fundamentalism and its militarised variety in the region is not a mere aberration. We have to reckon with all its support structures spread globally.
3. The militarised fundamentalist movement has changed the complexion of the Kashmiri society and polity beyond recognition. A new trigger happy generation has grown in the valley, indoctrinated by the Jamaat-i-Islami schools, which spurns co­existence with contempt.
4. The and historical Kashmiri identity is being not only eroded but systematically destroyed and replaced by a concocted identity which is essentially Islamic.
5. Kashmir is an area of civilizational challenges as well as international intrigue. Kashmiri Pandit is a regional minority, identifying with Indian civilization and ethos, including commitment to a democratic secular polity. Therefore the Pandits are a natural impediment to forces inimical to Indian civilization and its cultural values. So, he shall continue to be a front-line victim and a susceptible minority to the designs of Islamic fundamentalists and the international political vested interests.
6. Treatment meted out to Kashmiri Pandits has completely shattered their faith in the politico-administrative dispensation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. In a situation like this which has put a total squeeze on the community, phenomenon of a Diaspora has been unleashed playing havoc with its distinct ethno-cultural identity and pushing it into extinction.
7. Since a broader consensus on some form of autonomy already exists in Jammu and Kashmir, which essentially implies restructuring of the state, no body should foreclose the option of a democratic secular political dispensation for those sections of Kashmiri population who are seeking fuller integration with India. Short of Azadi postures hint towards radical transformations in future and a battle for a viable survival for all those who profess faith in the Indian Constitution.
I must say that the structure which was provided to Jammu and Kashmir State should have ensured survival of the democratic secular institutions and values in the state. This structure has completely failed. Kashmiri Pandits are face to face with a situation where chances of co-existence are very bleak. Nor is there any possibility that the leadership of the valley would work out a dispensation under which the politico-economic rights of the Pandit community are ensured. The Kashmiri Pandits have concerns as a regional minority, which is unrepresented, as internally displaced people, as a territoriless community and as an indigenous ethno-religious community in Kashmir. Therefore, a dispensation has to be evolved whereby the interests of Kashmiri Pandits are guaranteed.
In view of their peculiar and precarious position, they have to be resettled in a compact and safe area in the valley with a definite constitutional arrangement and identity; as that alone would put a halt to their genocide and guarantee their survival. Hence, recognizing and ensuring their right to a Homeland in the valley, as described in the Margadarshan Resolution, would end their perpetual homelessness and reverse their genocide.

Pandit refugees & post-poll Kashmir

HINDUSTAN TIMES, November 7, 1996
By Shailendra Aima
AFTER six years in exile and waiting for that ray of hope which would see them re­settled in their homeland, three lakh Kashmiri Pandits still find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Now that the elections are over and Dr Abdullah has come to power with a thumping majority, Pandits' fears should have been allayed and a sense of security gradually descended on their hurt psyche and battered souls. Maybe the din of the victory processions in Jammu, the base camp and epicenter of Pandit poli­tics, has to subside before activity and enthusiasm among the "mig­rants" is heard and felt. But those who are inclined to hear murmurs and feel for weak tremors have a different tale to narrate. Pandits, who comprehensively boycotted the poll-process in the valley, do not visualize an immediate return, a much desired act to fit in the larger scheme of declaring nor­malcy in the state, nay the valley.
While the state in general is gripped with a fever and fervour of hailing the recently acquired democracy and a popular govern­ment, one finds the Pandits and their leaders huddled in closed room discussions and conference rooms, pondering over their fate and fortune, debating the wisdom of their election boycott and anx­iously awaiting orders for the "migrant employees" to march to the valley. Similar would be the predicament of more than a lakh of such "migrants" who have moved away from Jammu to De­lhi and other places outside the state. Something somewhere is definitely wrong.
Dr Abdullah, in his first Press conference after winning the elec­tions, while prioritizing the tasks before his government, commit­ted himself to the safe and secure return of the Pandit refugees. He also talked of Pandits as an in­separable part of the Kashmiri milieu and stated that Kashmir is and shall remain incomplete with­out the Pandits. Anyhow, after these initial expressions, Dr Abdullah is now concentrating on his first political priority of defin­ing, deciding and negotiating on a package of autonomy for the state. His second priority is sur­render of militants and rehabilita­tion of surrendered militants. And his third priority is to deter­mine, within the package of grea­ter autonomy, the quantum of re­gional autonomy to the three re­gions of the state. Besides these important political issues, Dr Abdullah has to address other administrative and related mat­ters. In fact, his involvement and proclivities hardly leave any doubt that the issue of Pandit re­fugees has been relegated to the back stage, at the moment, in his list of priorities.
Besieged by the last six years of administrative apathy and politic­al isolation, the refugees are clue­less as to what is in store for them. During their exile, these refugees, while eking out a living in ram­shackle tents, have continued to espouse the cause of the Indian nation even under grave provoca­tion and alienation from the poli­tical establishment of the country.
Pandit organisations like Panun Kashmir, have been in the fore­front in exposing the fun­damentalist and communal con­tours of the militant movement in Kashmir. While doing so they have also exposed the ruling elite of Kashmir, both of NC and Con­gress brand, for having pursued a policy of disguised communalism.
In fact, the Pandits have been so irked by the Kashmiri variety of disguised communalism that dur­ing the 1994 UN Convention on Human Rights in Geneva, the Panun Kashmir delegation con­fronted the Indian delegation led by Vajpayee on inducting Dr Farooq in the official Indian de­legation. In spite of this, both Dr Farooq and Panun Kashmir emerged heroes at Geneva in de­feating Pakistan. And hence, this love-hate relationship between the two sides of the Kashmir story - Dr Farooq on one side and the refugee Pandits on the other.
With the youth in Kashmir hav­ing tasted and tested the power of the gun, with the forced and illeg­al occupation of Pandit properties and premises in the valley, and with the vacancies (created due to mass exodus of Pandit em­ployees), having already been fil­led by the so-called "misguided youth" at the instance of militant leaders, a vested interest in keeping the Pan­dits away from their homeland, already exists in Kashmir. And it is not going to be easy for any government to neutralize this vested interest.
If the recent trends are any in­dicators, Pandits' properties are being purchased through large scale distress sales in the valley. A fair estimate suggests that about eighteen thousand refugee fami­lies have already constructed houses in and around Jammu. An equal number has found settle­ment outside the state, in Delhi, Bombay, Dehradun and other cities. There are another four thousand government employees' households and five thousand re­fugee families living in the camps who might be the only persons with active stakes in the valley. Even, as reports indicate, many among them would only be in­terested in going to the valley to dispose of their properties at the first possible opportunity. Such is the feeling of insecurity and dis­tress among the Pandits. Hence, the chances of a viable and perma­nent return of the Pandits to Kashmir have become bleak with time.
In such an eventuality, it is not difficult to imagine the character of the state and society in Kash­mir. The ethno-religious cleans­ing in the valley has deprived Kashmir of any semblance of a pluralistic character. How long shall the Indian state, which is committed to a secular, democra­tic order, be able to retain a monolithic, Islamic pocket of re­sistance into its fold, with hostile Islamic states in its immediate neighbourhood?
The state, the society and the political establishment in India shall, therefore, have to do a soul searching to find an answer. Is the priority for the Indian state in Kashmir an agenda of greater autonomy or the agenda of viable return of the Pandits to the valley? The post-poll scenario enjoins upon the state as well as central governments to come out with a foolproof resettlement and re­habilitation plan for these hapless victims of terrorist violence and communal politics. Their perma­nent rehabilitation with constitu­tional safeguards defined entirely to their satisfaction is the real test of the secular and democratic character of the Indian state and Kashmiri politics. Else, in the frame-work of regional auton­omies, Pandits have a strong case for a homeland with a union terri­tory status.

INDIA'S SAINT-SOLDIERS--BIRTH OF THE KHALSA

The nation celeberated the tercentenary of the Khalsa on Baisakhi this year. On this day, Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru founded the Khalsa-a brotherhood of saint-soldiers. They were to wield the sword to protect virtue against vice and to put an end to the intolerant religious policy of Mughals represented by Aurangzeb. Guru Govind Singh was of the view that the forces of intolerance and tyranny can be countered only by reinvigorating the faith and inculcating fighting spirit among the people
PATRIOTIC ROLE:
Ideas of patriotism and martyrdom inculcated by Guru Govind Singh, the prophet of resistance has left a chequered legacy. The Sikhs have been in the forefront of the country's freedom struggle and acted as the sword-arm of India's defence after 1947. When the Britishers came, the Sikhs were the last to lay down the arms. They were also the first to raise the banner of revolt against them.
The two major anti-British movements of 1920s-Ghadarite movement of Komagata Maru fame and the Gurudwara Reform movement were exclusively Sikh movements and shook the foundations of the colonialist empire. In these struggles four hundred Sikhs lost their lives, about two hundred were maimed andanother thirty thousand arrested. Out of 2,175 patriots who gave their lives for India's freedom, 1557 were Sikhs. During the anti-colonialist struggle 2446 Indians were banished to Kala Pani, out of this 2147 were Sikhs. 127 martyrs were hanged and among these 92 were Sikhs.
KASHMIRI PANDITS AND SIKH GURUS
This historic moment of tercentenary is an occasion for exiled Kashmiri Pandits to rededicate themselves to the ideals of Sikh gurus and express their gratitude for saving their faith. Only those communities who remember their saviours, survive in history.
In 1669, the bigoted Mughal ruler Aurangzeb unleashed a policy of religious persecution against non-Muslims. This caused large-scale demoralisation and fear among the people. Seeing all this Guru Tegh Bahadur, the prophet of reassurance felt the need to rekindle their crest fallen spirits. During 1673 and 1674 Guru Tegh Bahadur undertook intensive work in the Malwa and Bangar areas, inspiring people with confidence and encouraging them to face all odds and difficulties. This was his silent but sure protest against Aurangzeb's aggressive policy of persecution. Thousands of them came to have his holy darshan and to receive his message of courage and hope embodied in the dictum, 'Fear not, nor give fear to others'. The people of Northern India, particularly the Hindus, found their natural saviour in the person of Guru Tegh, Bahadur. He became the symbol of India's civilisational resistance at that time. After reawakening the people's spirits, Guru finally retired to his headquarters, Chak Nanaki, presently called Anandpur Sahib.
On May 25, 1675 a band of sixteen Chief Brahmins of Kashmir, under the leadership of Pandit Kripa Ram Dutt reached Anandpur Sahib to seek his intervention. The Mughal Governor Iftikhar Khan had ordered them to covert or face death. It was in Gurudwara Manji Sahib that Guru heard their tale of woe and went into pensive mood. Deeply moved by their appeal, the Guru pondered a while and then announced his decision that he would even sacrifice his life for the protection of their faith. The Guru had been keenly watching the grave situation enveloping the country in the wake of Aurangzeb's policy of religious persecution. He was convinced that only his martyrdom can stem this tide.
Why Kashmiri Pandits sought the intervention of only Guru Tegh Bahadur has remained a subject of much curiosity. Though the impact of religious persecution was felt all over India but only on the issue of Kashmiri Pandits' persecution Guru decided to undertake the supreme sacrifice. This has also aroused much interest among serious students of Indian civilisation.
Though it must be admitted that Kashmiri Pandits approached Guru Tegh
Bahadur for immediate succuour, but its implications were far reaching. Much before Pandit Kripa Ram's mission to Anandpur Sahib, Pandit spiritual leaders and the Sikh Gurus had been in intimate contact and shared their ideas in the spiritual realm. Pandit Kripa Ram was no stranger to the Durbar of Sikh Gurus. He was a descendent of Pandit Brahm Das, who had met Guru Nanak in Mattan. Kripa Ram had known the Ninth Guru and also taught Sanskrit classics to the young Gobind Rai. During the reign of Jehangir, Guru Hargobind came to Srinagar and met Kashmiri saintess Mata Bagh Bari, who lived at Rainawari. It is interesting that Mata Bagya Bari's spiritual interaction with the sixth Sikh Guru is so well-preserved in the Sikh religious tradition. In Pandit tradition Mata Bagya Bari is a reference model for the highest attainment of spiritual merit. In their daily discourse, Pandits often refer, 'Zan Chhak Bagya Bhad' Translated into English, it means 'As if you are Bagya Bari'. Why Kashmiri Pandits approached Guru Tegh Bahadur can be explained by the fact that they were in desperate search for a centre of resistance, which would recognise the civilisational challenges overtaking the country then.
And by appealing to the Sikh Guru, they were subtly conveying to the countrymen that this was the only credible and competent institution, which could overtake this gigantic task. Secondly, Kashmir Pandits had been feeling natural affinity with the Sikh Gurus. They empathised with the egalitarian ideas of Sikh Gurus and maintained regular contact with them right since the times of Guru Nanak. Kashmiri Hindu society had rejected the caste rigidity that characterised the Indian society. Long sway of Buddhism and the non-dualistic Shaivism had totally undermined the caste system and made Kashmir a casteless society Ideas of Sikh Gurus thus looked so natural to them.
Guru Gegh Bahadur recognised the importance of preserving the civilisational centre in Kashmir. Its collapse, he felt would have grave impact on the future of civilisation struggle in rest of India. Kashmiri Hindus had provided intellectual and spiritual leadership to Hindus of India. Benaras Brahmins to whom Aurangzeb had approached first for conversion told him that they could take a decision only if Kashmir Brahmins accepted it. Seeking intervention of Guru Tegh Bahadur by Kashmiri Pandits and Gurus supreme sacrifice-the real impact of these two events in the evolution of Khalsa has yet to be fathomed.
About this, the renowned Sikh scholar, Fauja Singh writes, 'the appeal of the Kashmiri Pandits for help, coming towards the end, played a decesive role in so far as it helped the Guru in making his final resolve on the issue. However, from the manner in which the circumstances shaped themselves and finally led to the crucial point, it may be clear that the issues involved were wider and deeper than the compassion for a few woe-stricken Brahmins of a disant area'. Guru Gobind Singh's statement in his famous composition, Bachitar Natak, on the martyrdom of his father reads as follows--
The Lord (Guru Tegh Bahadur) protected their paste-mark and sacred thread,
And performed a mighty deed in the Kali Age. To protect the holy he spared no pains; Gave his head but uttered not a groan. For the protection of dharma He did this noble deed; Gave up his head but not his ideal. Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom for protecting the faith of Pandits made him a messiah for Pandit Kripa Ram and his other companions. They settled down In Anandpur Sahib for good. Pandit Kripa Ram was later baptised by Guru Govind Singh. He gave his life heroically fighting the treacherous Mughal forces at Chamkaur along with Guru Gobind Singh's two elder sons.Later, in another battle at Muktsar, Keshav Bhat, a Kashmiri Pandit was one among those forty Brahmins, who fought alongside Guru Govind Singh and achieved martyrdom.
Guru was so moved by their heroism that he named them MUKTAS and himsel performed their last rites. Much of the information about the events of these times have been chronicled by immigrant Kashmiri Pandits. Their accounts called as Bhatta Vahis (Pandits' accounts) have been carried from generation to generation by Punjab's balladeers until these were recorded in the last century.
RISE OF KHALSA:
Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom had far-reaching political effects. The Mughals had, not long after, to face stiff resistance from the Sikhs. Sikh opposition contributed significantly to the collapse of the Mughal empire. After the martyrdom of his father, Guru Gobind Singh, took several concrete steps to give a new orientation to the Sikh community. As a true soldier of the people and conscious of the role he had to play in the aftermath of ninth Guru's martyrdom, Guru Gobind Singh did not get overwhelmed by his tragic loss. Guru's public execution had outraged the Indians. From near and far they moved to Anandpur Sahib to be with the young Guru. They looked to him as the promised saviour and the man of the hour.
A soldier of destiny, the tenth Guru started consolidating his resources and began building an army of saint-soldiers among his people. He gave a clarion call to all the Sikhs on the Baisakhi fair in 1699. Several thousand Sikhs came to participate in the fair in response to the Guru's call. He created the Khalsa in 1699 after baptising the 'Panj Pyara' (Five beloved ones) and asking them in turn to baptise himself. It was really a psychological feat of transformation of the community as also of democratising the religious authority, which had earlier vested in the personality of the Guru exclusively. Personal Guruship ended with his death and Guruship came to be vested in the scriptures and the Panth. After the creation of Khalsa, out of the fourteen battles they fought against the well-disciplined imperial army, not less than twelve times they defeated the enemy convincingly. In his struggle against intolerance,
Guru Gobind Singh suffered grievious losses personally. His father was martyred and mother died in captivity. Two of his sons met their end fighting single-handedly against heavy odds. His two younger sons were walled-in alive. Nowhere in history has any leader given so much personal sacrifice. Aurangzeb ultimately decided to invite Guru Gobind Singh for reconcilation.
Guru sent him a letter known as Zafar Nama, the Epistle of victory. In it he described Aurangzeb as faithless and irreligious. Guru told him, 'what if my four sons have been killed, I live to take their revenge. It's no herosim to extinguish a few sparks. You have only excited a devastating fire. You have the pride of your empire, while I am proud of the kingdom of God. You must not forget that this world is like a caravan sarai and one must leave it sooner or later..' This disarmed Aurangzeb and he was forced to remove all restrictions on Guru.It is said that Aurangzeb then took to his bed and died soon thereafter

The Secular Agenda & Kashmiri Pandits

BY SHAILENDRA AIMA
Kashmiri Pandits have prided themselves for several centuries as being learned, broad-minded and modern in several aspects of life and behavior. Besides, they have been astute in state-craft and most adjusting. Their adaptability has been an envy of their competitors as well as compatriots. To these qualities of head and heart, Pandits have also taken pride in the adage of being secular. In fact, it has been one of the Pandit luminaries, Jawahar Lal, who thrust the term not only on Pandits but on the entire Indian nation and state.

Genesis of Secularism
The Cambridge Advanced Dictionary describes secularism as “the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country” and secularist as when something is secularized, religious influence, power or control is removed from it. It synonyms are often atheism or agnosticism.

The term “SECULAR” was used for the first time about 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake to denote "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life" The fundamental principle of Secularism is that, in his whole conduct, man should be guided exclusively by considerations derived from the present life itself. Anything that is above or beyond the present life should be entirely overlooked. Whether God exists or not, whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based. A fortiori all motives derived from the Christian religion are worthless. "Things Secular is as separate from the Church as land from the ocean" (English Secularism, 1).
What ever far one would stretch ones imagination, the word secular ends up connoting rejection of religion and religious considerations. It asserts the freedom from religion and the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. And in another sense, refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on what it considers to be evidence and fact, not on beliefs that secularists consider superstitious. Secularists hold that public policy should be free from religious influence.
Unfortunately, primary sources in the nature of collection of Holyoake’s own writings are not available – at least not easily. But, happily, wholly reliable material is available to show the unmistakable views of Holyoake and Bradlaugh. In 1851, a definite stage in the emergence of explicit secularism was reached by the founding of the Central Secular Society by Holyoake. The Society issued a statement of secularist doctrine proclaiming:
1. science as the true guide of man,
2. morality as secular, not religious, in origin,
3. reason as the only authority,
4. freedom of thought and speech, and
5. that owing to the uncertainties of survival we should direct our efforts to this life only.

George Holyoake was no less an atheist than Charles Bradlaugh. Holyoake had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for making the blasphemous statement that God should be retired. It should be remembered that Holyoake published 'The Trial of Theism' in 1858. It is also recognized that his coining of the word ‘secularism’ was an attempt to give atheism some respectability. In March 1870 there was between Holyoake and Bradlaugh a debate on the proposition that “the principles of secularism do not include atheism” Holyoake in support of the proposition canvassed that “… the secularist concerns himself with this world without denying or discussing any other world, either the origin of this, or the existence of that”.
Bradlaugh, on the other hand, held “that the logical consequence of secularism is the denial, the absolute denial of Providence”. In short, Holyoake said that ignoring God was enough; Bradlaugh insisted that God should be banished. This minor difference between them did not affect their common conviction that secularism demanded complete separation of the Church from the State and the abolition of all privileges granted to religious organizations.

The Indian Context
However, in the discourse on secularism in India, Dr. Radhakrishnan’s view of secularism is enough to inform ourselves on the subject:
"No group of citizens shall arrogate to itself rights and privileges which it denies to others. No person should suffer any form of disability or discrimination because of his religion but all alike should be free to share to the fullest degree in the common life. This is the basic principle involved in the separation of Church and State. The religious impartiality of the Indian State is not to be confused with secularism or atheism. Secularism as has been defined is in accordance with the ancient religious traditions of India". (emphasis provided).

At best this means that, in the Indian context, in a secular society everyone should be free to practice his or her religion. It means equal respect for all religions and cultures and non-interference of religion in the government affairs. Also, according to the Indian Constitution no discrimination will be made on the basis of caste, creed, gender and class. Similarly all citizens of India irrespective of ones religion, caste or gender have right to vote. According to articles 14 to 21 all will enjoy same rights without any discrimination on any ground.

Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, who, as the Chief Justice of India, had inaugurated the seminar on Secularism organized by the Indian Law Institute in New Delhi, delivered Kashinath Trimbak Telang Endowment Lectures in February 1970 on 'Secularism and the Constitution of India. On the subject he stated as follows:
"The word ‘secular’, like the word ‘religious’, is amongst the richest of all words in its range of meaning. It is full of subtle shades which involve internal contradictions, and of these contradictions the conventional dictionary meaning can scarcely give a correct view”.

The Constitution of India, till the 42nd Amendment in 1976, did not contain the word ‘secular’ except incidentally in Article 25(2)(b). Prof. K.T. Shah was the only member of the Constituent Assembly who made a valiant effort to get a provision regarding the secular character of India included in the Constitution. The following amendment, moved as Amendment No.366, was defeated on 3rd December 1948.
"The State in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith; and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the Union.”

To be sure, neither this amendment nor the speech which Prof. Shah made in support of the amendment would have brought about a situation of “a wall of separation between the State and the Church”. But it would have put a brake upon the State functionaries freely using the State finance and the machinery for pilgrimages and other religious activities. Prof. Shah’s amendment would have also prevented the State media, especially radio and television, from broadcasting bhajans, prayers, religious discourses etc.

An early challenge to the theory and practice of secularism in India was provided by the episode involving the reconstruction of Somnath Temple in Gujarat. As is well known to students of Indian history, Somnath temple was destroyed in AD 1025 by Mohmed Gazni and the Shivalinga was broken into pieces. Since then the Hindu sentiment had been strongly agitated and reconstruction of the temple and the installation of a new consecrated lingam had been strongly desired by believing Hindus.

After India attained independence in 1947, moves were initiated towards the reconstruction of the temple. K.M. Munshi, in his 'Pilgrimage to Freedom' recalls that Sardar Patel, as Deputy Prime Minister, pledged the Government of India to the reconstruction of the historical temple and that the Cabinet, presided over by Jawaharlal Nehru, decided to reconstruct the temple at Government cost. But Gandhiji advised Sardar Patel not to have the temple constructed and suggested that sufficient money should be collected from the people for this purpose. This advice was accepted and a committee for overseeing the project was appointed under the chairmanship of K.M. Munshi. The decision of the Government, therefore, became irrelevant.

What followed is important. The Constitution of India came into force in January 1950 and in December of the same year Sardar Patel passed away. Munshi invited President Rajendra Prasad to perform the ceremony of the installation of the deity and requested him to accept the invitation only if he was sure of fulfilling the promise. This was because Munshi suspected that Jawaharlal Nehru might jeopardize the President's commitment. However, the President Prasad stood by his commitment and performed the installation function on 11th May 1951.
It seems Jawaharlal Nehru did not take well the association of Munshi with the work of the restoration of Somnath temple. For, Munshi says : “At the end of a Cabinet meeting Jawahar called me and said 'I don't like your trying to restore Somanath. It is Hindu revivalism”.
This Cabinet meeting was of 23rd April 1951 because in a letter which Munshi wrote on 24th April 1951, he recalls "Yesterday you referred to 'Hindu revivalism'...". This letter sets out the history of the restoration work with which, as the letter sets out, the States Ministry was closely associated.

This episode gives rise to some important questions. Was the Government of India justified in resolving to undertake the restoration work of a temple (though as a result of Gandhi's suggestion the money was not provided by the Government)?

If such a decision was taken in a Cabinet meeting over which the Prime Minister presided, was he justified in protesting to the President about the latter's participation in the function and in chiding Munshi for associating with a work of Hindu revivalism?

It is true that the Prime Minister's protest and rebuke occurred after the 'secular Constitution' came into force but no Government could have disassociated with the implementation of a decision taken by it.

These questions have been rendered irrelevant by the conduct of the later Prime Ministers (not excluding Jawaharlal's daughter) and the Presidents traveling at State expense to religious places and for religious functions.

M.N. Roy had already commented on this phenomenon in his article in 'The Radical Humanist' of 14th May 1950 as follows:
What is necessary is not facile profession of secularism, but a movement for the popularization of cultural values. The process of secularization, assuming that it is desired by the Government, cannot be promoted by legislation or executive orders. But men at the helm of affairs could help, if they did not willingly swim with the contrary current, as they do as a rule. The President of the Republic, Governors and Ministers of the States and the lesser are frequently taking leading parts in public religious ceremonies. This demonstrative religiosity is entirely different from religion as a part of one's private life.

A very comprehensive study of the Constitution of India and also of the social and cultural conditions in India with a view to determining whether 'India is a secular State' has been made by Prof. D.E. Smith in India as a Secular State. It has been rightly regarded as a pioneering study on the subject. Contrary to popular understanding, Prof. Smith does not assert that India is a secular State. To the question whether India is a secular State, his answer is a qualified ‘Yes’. The reason why he does not answer in the negative is that he poses the question, What is the meaning of the term ‘secular State’ in the Indian context? There were several features of the Constitution which were strongly suggestive of secularism. The prevalent cultural indicators were supportive of secularism.

On page 40 of his book, he formulated his famous table enumerating five characteristics of the three religions - Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam - which indicated whether they were favourable to the secular State. Of five factors, four were positive in the case of Hinduism and Buddhism while four were negative in the case of Islam - which meant that the possibility of an Islamic society becoming secular is practically nil.

India is a country where religion is very central to the life of people. India’s age-old philosophy as expounded in Hindu scriptures called Upanishada is sarva dharma samabhava, which means equal respect for all religions. The Upanishadas further go to assert “Ekam sada, viprah bahudha vadanti”, meaning, therefore, that the TRUTH is one, and that wise men define it differently.

Sociologist Ashis Nandy ('A Billion Gandhis,' Outlook, June 21) too finds it absurd that an inappropriate European import is being forced on India. Says Nandy, “To go to an Indian village to teach tolerance through secularism is a form of obscene arrogance to which I do not want to be a party,” acknowledging that tolerance is an inherent part of the Indian character, something the professional 'secularists' find hard to accept.

Patrick French writing on what keeps India united observes : “Once the British had conquered territory and painted the map red, it became easier to see what needed to be opposed. A common sense of pride and purpose grew, with khadi as the first truly pan-Indian symbol. The freedom movement evicted the alien rulers easily compared to the long and bloody battles for nationhood elsewhere in the world, giving an optimistic momentum that inspired the struggles of other occupied people…. After Independence, the new leaders wrote history in their own image, and set about uniting the country in a way it never had been united before. Jinnah's role in the nationalist movement, and the fact that his demand for Pakistan had been precipitated by the failure of the Congress to cut a deal with the Muslim League in the 1930s, or to recognize his representative importance, was edited away. Further historical elision was required too: it became necessary to pretend that the Muslim invasions of earlier centuries had been undertaken in order to contest political space and bring kebabs, qawwali and ice to the people of Hindustan. A reading of victorious contemporaneous texts gives a rather different impression, suggesting that conquering foreign lands and destroying idolaters' temples was a virtue in itself, …. Except for foreigners and a handful of academics, everyone knows this in private, but a situation has developed over time whereby it is difficult to say so publicly for fear of sparking a return to the days of violence, or encouraging the zealots who want to create an exclusively Hindu rashtra. More than half a century after Independence, with the raw wound still exposed and unhealed-in Kashmir, in Gujarat, … and in the failure to normalize relations with Pakistan-history cannot be faced squarely in case a genie is unleashed. The attempt by the NDA government to rewrite school textbooks was in part a response to this imbalance, but it was handled so badly and so crankishly that it made matters worse. The idea that an archaeological dig beneath the foundations of a mosque at the birthplace of a mythological figure might, if successful, provoke some sort of national revelation or realignment indicates the scale of the existing problem.”

The Dichotomy

It is clear therefore that Secularism in India is trying to exist between two glaring opposites. And in fact, instead of resolving the basic notions of nation building, it has unleashed a plethora of issues that is threatening the very survival of the Indian nation and the state. Central to this entire debate on SECULARISM is the Muslim question and the Muslim identity politics. The Nehruvian attempts at rewriting or contriving the history has become a hot topic for debate Whether it did any good or not, but it definitely has done a great havoc with his own community.
Prem Nath Bajaj, who is notorious for his Pakistani leanings, quotes Gandhi’s letter to him in his book The Kashmir Crucible. Gandhi writes, “In a Muslmaan state like Kashmir a Hindu ruler can rule only by abdicating”.

Maulana Mohammad Ali, a great freedom fighter and secularist had to say the following about Mahatma Gandhi, “However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalman though he be without character”.
Ambedkar, who was to narrate this about-turn (of the Ali Brothers) with much relish in support of his thesis that Muslims cannot coexist with non-Muslims, recorded the sequel. "The statement created a great stir," he wrote.

Many did not believe that Mr. Mohammed Ali who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptuous sentiments about him. When Mr.Mohammed Ali was speaking at a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. Me. Mohammed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi." As the controversy swelled, Maulana Mohammed Ali gave his version of the reason for his statement.

In a letter to Swami Shraddhananda he wrote: “The fact is as … some Mussalman friends have been constantly flinging at me the charge of being a worshipper of Hindus and a Gandhi-worshipper. ….. I had, therefore, on several occasions plainly declared that in the matter of religion, I professed the same belief as any other true Mussalman, and as such I claimed to be a follower of the Prophet Mohammed (on him be peace) and not of Gandhiji. And further that since I hold Islam to be the highest gift of God, therefore, I was impelled by the love I bear towards Mahatmaji to pray to God that He might illumine his soul with the true light of Islam. I wish, however, to emphatically declare that I hold that today neither the representatives of Islam nor of the Hindu, Jewish, Nazarene or Parsi faith can present another instance of such high character and moral worth as Gandhiji and that is the reason why I hold him in such high reverence and affection. I deeply revere my own mother, and if contentment and gratefulness under all circumstances be the true meaning of Islam, I claim there is no person, howsoever well-versed in religion, who has understood it better than she. Similarly, I regard Maulana Abdul Bari as my religious guide. His loving kindness holds me in bondage. I deeply admire his sincerity of heart. But in spite of all this, I make bold to say that I have not yet found any person who in actual character is entitled to a higher place than Mahatma Gandhi …….But between belief and actual character there is a wide difference. As a follower of Islam I am bound to regard the creed of Islam as superior to that professed by the followers of any nonIslamic religion. And in this sense the creed of even a fallen and degraded Mussalman is entitled to a higher place than that of any other non-Muslim irrespective of his high character even though the person in question be Mahatma Gandhi himself.”

I have quoted from Gandhi’s experiences, only because there couldn’t be more (un)secular a person than Gandhi. He was deeply religious and at the same time showed equal respect for all religions. And incase that is the definition of secularism in the Indian context, then this definition as well as the D.E. Smith formulations donot incorporate the Muslim world view.

“How to reconcile the (un) Secular and the Islamic world-views” is the perpetual dichotomy of the Indian secularists. They insist, implore and even browbeat on avoiding, ignoring and even forgetting the Muslim question, the wounds of which, persisting from partition in 1947 get carried over to Kashmiri Pandits’ cleansing and to every where around us. And instead of confronting the ideologues of two-nation theory, the Al Qaida, and their infinite off-shoots operating from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, Sudan, Chechnya, et al; the secularists like Nehru get angry and denounce any act of Hindus as revivalist, obscurantist and fundamentalist. They not only indulge in Hindu bashing, they also end up providing excellent camouflage to the subversive antinational acts and propaganda.

Pandits & Secularism

As already stated Jawahar Lal Nehru was a great proponent of secularism. And since the Pandits in Kashmir looked up to him as their mentor and a role model, they also followed suit. It is a different matter that many Kashmiri Pandits with an intrinsic capacity to understand the inevitable did not tread the secularist path and committed themselves to complete integration of J&K with India. Nehru debunked them as communalists when they met him in Delhi in 1950 and asked them to support Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and to support the special status of J&K away from the constitutional frame-work of India.

Article 370 excluded the state of J&K from the Constitutional frame-work of India and gave J&K its own constituent assembly, its own Constitution and Flag. In fact, it created a nation within a nation, a de facto Muslim state in a federal India in the name of secularism, where the Muslim majority of Kashmir should enjoy all privileges and freedom of an independent nation. For accepting the suzerainty of the Indian Republic; they were guaranteed both physical and economic security against aggression and deprivation. Not withstanding the legality and finality of the Instrument of Accession that the Ruler of J&K signed with India, the Indian state cajoled the Muslim leadership of Kashmir in negotiating accession that was made conditional. It was a comic situation that wrought tragedy after tragedy upon the entire non-Muslim population of J&K state in the coming years.

The tallest secular leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, had betrayed his hatred and abhorrence for the Kashmiri Hindus when he would openly proclaim the slogan of (raliev, Chsaliev ya galiev) – merge, leave or perish. It was again Sheikh and his competent team of Goebbels who successfully floated the myths of Pandit prosperity and their exploitation of Muslim masses. The Hindus were the pariahs whose exclusion from state and society was the requisite for Muslim empowerment and awakening. It was not only the Indian secularists who sided with the rank communalists of Kashmir in spreading these lies and canards, but even a section of opportunist Hindu leadership of the state, including some Pandits, prided themselves as secularists and liberals.

These so-called opportunistic, secularist Pandits even today don’t get tired of singing the songs of false bonhomie and secular traditions of Kashmir, which they claim to be “Kashmiriat”. They tell the uprooted exiled Pandits who are languishing in tattered camps, to return to Kashmir and co-exist with their Muslim brethren, while themselves enjoying a siesta in their plush air-conditioned suites in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, in the US or any other far away land. Many of them hobnob with the Muslim political establishments for seeking berths in Legislature or Cabinet. And when a victim protests, these secularists call him depraved, senseless, - “a typical batta coming from the smelly streets of Habbakadal”. Not only that they advice him on forgetting Kashmir, if he refuses to cohabit with Islamic precedence.
Secularism – to these Secular Pandits is :
(i) A false sense of Kashmiriyat,
(ii) A denial of Pandit assertion,
(iii) Belief in the Myth of Pandit disunity, and
(iv) Lack of pride and ignorance of his ethno-religious tradition.

These secularists would never engage the perpetrators, but would scrap the victims. And while talking about serious and structured dialogues, they would flee in the event of an informed, logical, coherent, thought-provoking cliffhanger meant at them. It is better that the Secularists, who are often rank opportunists, and many a time cowards, sense the mood and fall in line. What India needs especially at this moment are the aggressive virtues, the spirit of soaring idealism, bold creation, fearless resistance and courageous response? Timid and apologetic secular agenda is redundant in the context of both the Pandits and India.

Kashmiriyat - the face behind the veil by Sanjay Kaul

Publication: SKMedia Date: January 2003
Every time there is a spate of killings in Kashmir, almost everybody with any investment in the Kashmir situation rushes in to protest the incongruity of the event in the context of the fabled liberal traditions of Kashmir, or what is now fashionably also known as Kashmiriyat.
It has been a while since Kashmiriyat began doing the rounds, to the extent I can't really say who or what actually coined it - it could've been a coinage of the Maharaja era; or even the JKLF's accidental discovery in arguing the cultural isolation of the Kashmiris, although why they would ignore Jammu-yat or Ladhaki-yat I don't know. It could also have been a National Conference plant, in arguing its case for greater autonomy for a very special people; it is a pliant enough word to be used by the rag-tag Hurriyat, in their hurry at becoming amenable to any international platform that seems available; and it is often used by the Indian political establishment across the floor when they want to rub in the distinction between this Kashmir and the one that is not this.
The truth, in this case, is not somewhere in between but somewhere completely else. Kashmiriyat as an attempt to brand the socio-cultural ethos of the Kashmiris, as distinct from the Jammuites and the Ladhakis serves to not only undermine the other two cultural identities, but it accents dangerously the distinction of being a Kashmiri. That this is also patently incorrect is another matter, for how different is essential Kashmiriyat from Punjabiyat? What is it that makes the Kashmiri unique which does not the Jammuite or the Ladhakhi? Or even the Bihari or the Bengali? Is it the salubrious climate? Or is it some stunning example of secular behaviour that, some would hope, puts the Gujaratis to shame? No Sir. Kashmiriyat is only as unique or as average as any other socio-cultural component of the region. And in that too, it does not possess as flattering a lineage as say, Bengal, if only for a people's intellectual and other achievements.
Kashmiriyat as tokenism, is yet another variation on the theme. When we want to propound the fictitious secularism of Kashmir, we use this variation wholeheartedly. But when it takes on meanings as a distinctive community of a people who have other politico-religious ambitions, we duck. This is precisely what Prime Minister Vajpayee had to skirt when he famously proposed 'insaaniyat' as a more encompassing paradigm to bringing peace in the Valley. And when it is used to speak of a distinct culture, its users usually fail to provide its context; if the Kashmiriyat of the Kashmir we still have with us is the liberal and benign variety, what of the Kashmir on the other side? Is that Kashmiriyat too or is it POKashmiriyat?
For the world community this word is fast achieving a flexible quality of application depending on what the pressure points are. The West is beginning to like this word because it gives them the handle to rub in the distinctiveness of the Kashmir region, and therefore its problem, with no reference to the state, and without upsetting the Indian viewpoint. This dubious quality of the word, quite in keeping with the political character of the region, is the perfect way to talk in a variety of tongues about the same thing without anybody discovering the real intent.
Then there is the quintessential spin-doctored version of Kashmiriyat, as a wonderfully benign, Sufistic version of Islam that is so unique that you find it nowhere else in the world. Quite right, that you find it nowhere else on earth - for where else do you find a land that has over the last 400 years, systematically expelled wave after wave of Kashmiri Pandits from its confines with no weapon other than religion. Here is a people who stand testimony to startling reduction in their count repeatedly - from over twenty-nine per cent of just Srinagar City in 1873, (Fredrick Drew; Census of 1873) to less than one per cent in the entire valley today...is this is the tradition of Kashmiryat?
That a minuscule minority, representative of the last remnants of any figment of pluralism in the valley, could become the focus of such an organised onslaught over such a long time! - and we are still all keyed in to watching The Pianist win an Oscar for its Director, a Jew who purportedly survived the Holocaust. Hey! we have our very own holocaust here, and its called Kashmiriyat, but is anybody looking?
The only constant, it seems, is that nobody seems to want to put the reality in its correct perspective - after all, if this sort of violence does not belong to Kashmir by culture or religion, why does it happen with such regular frequency?
I can just about visualise the champions of India's secular traditions rising in an echo against what is implicit in this statement. But would they care to ask if this kind of a campaign can survive century after century without bearing in its soil a small seed of what makes all this possible? No it can't, for without the seed there can be no tree; without a nurturing climate there can't be fruition.
There are commentators who want to wish away any finger-pointing at Kashmiris by pointing fingers at the north western borders - and the tradition continues even till today. But is the pusillanimous nature of the Kashmiri the only weak link that allows one morbid regime after another to find just the right environment in this place, all through its history, to practice such a long drawn cleansing? Be that as it may. To absolve Kashmiris, for what has happened in the valley, is to excuse a people their complicity in what has always happened in Kashmir.
Let us not allow the word to veil the truth: If Kashmiriyat represents liberalism, Aushwitz was Disneyland..
* This article is available for distribution through internet or for printing world wide without prior approval, but no part of the same may be edited or the work presented in any version other than this and without acknowledging the Author's copyright to this work.

Are the Kashmiri Pundits abandoned Dregs & Derelicts?

by V. Sundaram
During the last 15 years, as indeed not very different from our tragic national history ever since the Arab conquest of Sind in the 8th century, innocent and unarmed Hindus are being mercilessly murdered by the Mujahedins of compassionate Islam in Jammu and Kashmir. The eminent journalist K. Easwaran Nambudiri has rightly observed: 'Desecrated temples, decapitated idols, obscene graffiti on temple walls; bulldozed houses and destroyed locality of minority Hindus; burnt pages from sacred Vedic texts; couples being dragged to death after being tied to a jeep and appeals by 'non-communal' Muslims to surgically remove the 'cancer' called Hindus'.
I am not quoting from a work of fiction written by Easwaran Nambudiri. He has written these heart-rending words about an exhibition titled 'Sakshatkar: An encounter with truth', the photo exhibition recently organized by Panun Kashmir at the Open Palm Court Gallery at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi which graphically depicted the various facets of religious ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus in the Kashmir Valley. The exhibits clearly brought out the grim but real pictures from Kashmir. The treacherous and calamitous events that led to the exodus of Kashmiri Pundits from Jammu & Kashmir, their struggle to survive in make-shift refugee camps and to recreate a dignified life for themselves in exile were laid bare in the exhibition.
On display at the exhibition were the painful and heart-rending photographs of a Hindu couple from Herman in Pulwama who were tied behind a jeep and dragged till death with perhaps pseudo-secular concern and compassion from the mighty Government of India deeply devoted to the peace-process with Islamic terrorism.
What was their only crime against the unstated unspecified and unwritten provisions of the pseudo-secular Indian Penal Code? Their only avoidable unfortunate crime was: They were Hindus.
I am using the adjective 'avoidable' deliberately in this context because if only they had resorted to the pseudo-secular expedient of converting themselves to compassionate Islam, they would have been congratulated by the Union Minister for Home Affairs. The Union Minister for Minorities A R Antulay would have gone by a special Air Force Plane to Jammu & Kashmir and presided over the conversion function with these magical inaugural words: 'I am very grateful to Allah, the Magnificent and the Ever-compassionate, for giving this unique opportunity of presiding over a function where ignorant infidels "kafirs" have voluntarily come forward to embrace the tenets of Islam. Do you know that by one simple act of spontaneously embracing Islam,, you have become automatically eligible to live in Jammu & Kashmir? Is this not a glorious moment in the long and chequered history of India and indeed mankind?'
At the exhibition on atrocities against the Hindus and all things Hindu in Jammu & Kashmir, there were also photographs of the Shivalingam of the destroyed Basantbagh temple in Srinagar, the decapitated idol of Adi Shankara at Khojbagh in Baramulla, the desecrated Shiva idol outside the Raghunath temple at Fatehkadal in Srinagar, the desecrated and destroyed idols of Shiva temple at Hoonpura in Srinagar, the bulldozed three-storey magnificent Guptganga temple in Baramulla and a leaf from the sacred text in the burnt library of Tarbuni temple in Navakadal.
Many of my friends who are good historians told me that all the photographs in the Exhibition were reminiscent of the brutalities of Aurangzeb, Nadir Shah and Taimur. All the credit for organizing this Photo Exhibition in New Delhi should go to Dr Ajay Chrungoo, Chairman of the Panun Kashmir. He and his men have presented this exhibition after conducting a detailed field survey in all the six districts of the Valley in order to bring out the brutal facts relating to calculated Islamic terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir.
What is amazing is the fact that all these photographs were not taken by professionals but by the victims themselves who could barely manage to get hold of a rudimentary camera to document their tragedy to the outside world, and posterity.
And for those pseudo-secularists in the mafia of mass media in India and more particularly the English Press, who wax eloquently about the peace-loving and fraternal feelings of the ordinary Kashmiri Muslims towards their Kashmir Pundit brethren, there was a letter from one Mir Niaz Ahmed of Zaina Kadal, Srinagar which appeared in the local Daily Alsafa. 'I claim to be a rational and non-communal Muslim but at the same time, I sincerely feel that we Kashmiri Muslims should try our best to thwart any attempt by Pundits to return to the Valley. Pundits have been a cancer and once this cancer is removed, it should not be allowed to re-appear', he says.
After the recent inhuman killings of 34 unarmed innocent Hindus in Doda district in Jammu, our National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan declared with solemn and sanctimonious bumptiousness: 'Despite these killings, the peace process with the Mujahedins of Pakistan would continue'. Against this background, we can never be in doubt about the mindset that guides the separatist movement in Jammu & Kashmir. The objective behind the expulsion of the Hindus from Kashmir is to create a religious monolith at a place which has nurtured and nourished pluralism and co-existence through the Ages.
At the venue of the Sakshatkar exhibition, a brochure was distributed. The following words from that brochure clinch the issue for all mankind:
'Terrorism breeds a culture of intolerance. It is never revolutionary in content. It is anti-freedom and a crime against humanity. It can't be legitimized under any pretext. Genocide is its ultimate expression. Peace in Kashmir will remain elusive if the peace initiatives don't incorporate a comprehensive and permanent reversal of the genocide of Kashmiri Hindus, as its cardinal principle'.