The first major political crime committed in the Valley occurred exactly 66 years ago.A crime is an unlawful act. A political crime is an unlawful act whose purpose is political.
In August 1953, the elected chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, was deposed from his position, and sent to prison.Deposition was a lawful act of the Government of Kashmir & its Head of State, the Sadar-i-Riyasat, Karan Singh (who seems to approve Modi's recent masterstroke) because Abdullah had lost the confidence of the Sadar's Cabinet. Why? He had dismissed Health Minister, Pandit Saraf who refused to go and who mobilized other malcontnents like Girdharilal Dogra. However, it was Bakshi Ghulam Mohmammad's support which was crucial.
Abdullah was arrested in a separate matter- viz. anti-national activities- and sent to prison. This too was a lawful act. Why? The Kashmiri Constitution was different to the Indian one. The Indian Preventive Detention Act of 1950 did not extend to Kashmir. The Head of State was the son of the former King and he got to decide what was or wasn't 'anti-national'. Abdullah- who was insisting that Kashmir had only acceded control over defense, communications, and foreign affairs to New Delhi- had been hoist by his own petard! Rafi Ahmed Kidwai pulled the trigger on this. After Kidwai's death, Delhi offered Abdullah Kidwai's Cabinet job as Food Minister. But Abdullah resisted all blandishments and was soon back in jail. By his own argument, if Kashmir was autonomous then India couldn't get him released if Kashmir decided to keep him in jail.
What precipitated Abdullah's arrest? It was the revolt of Hindu Jammu- which wanted full merger with India, and the Ladhakhi spiritual leaders threat to accede to Tibet (which hadn't yet been over-run by the Chinese). Thus there was a threat to the territorial integrity of the State and so he was imprisoned for being 'anti-national'. From the Pakistani point of view, Abdullah would have been forced to choose Pakistan if J&K broke up. However, there were enough Kashmiri Muslim politicians who did not want to accede to Pakistan because they could see with their own eyes that the West Wing was not going down a democratic path. Elections were not held. Civil Servants and Feudal magnates ruled- though the Military would soon displace the former. Thus the Kashmiri political class, out of self-interest, preferred India because in India politicians rule the roost.
For five years he languished in jail, without any charges being brought against him.This was legal precisely because India's laws, in this respect, did not extend to J&K.
Incidentally, Sheikh Abdullah, once in power, introduced the draconian Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act in 1978 which allows the detention without trial of anyone over 16 for up to two years “in the case of persons acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State”, and for administrative detention up to one year where “any person is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”.
In 1958, the Sheikh was briefly released, but then jailed again, for a further five years. This time, charges were brought against him, of his being a Pakistani agent.By whom? Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad- Abdullah's own former comrade and Deputy Prime Minister. Bakshi was right. Abdullah was a loose canon. He was playing into the hands of Pakistan. His stupidity prevented he himself gaining the protections embodied in the Indian Constitution. Bakshi was quite an able administrator and has been called the architect of modern Kashmir. He understood that Abdullah had alienated the Hindus and the Buddhists and that his 'Socialist' measures had run aground because he did not have the foresight to replace the traditional financial system with co-operative banks with the result that the poorer class of agriculturalists were going to the wall.
Elitist cretins like Guha don't give a damn about poor people. They live in a fantasy world where prudent and lawful acts are 'political crimes'/
These were both laughable and contemptible, for while the Sheikh wavered between being pro-India and being pro-Azadi, he never remotely had any attachment to the State of Pakistan, because he believed that Hindus and Sikhs had exactly the same rights as Muslims.The charges against Abdullah were not 'laughable and contemptible'. They were correct. Jinnah may have believed Hindus and Sikhs would have had exactly the same rights as Muslims in Pakistan- but that's not how things had turned out, as everybody could see. Abdullah was engaging in fantasy. He had completely alienated the Hindus and Buddhists. J&K would break up. The Hindu politicians of Jammu would be fine because in India politicians get all the power. The Muslim politicians of the Valley would be displaced by Pakistani Civil Servants and Military officers because there was no way this small and impoverished territory could go it alone. Who would protect it from a 'tribal' incursion? From the Pakistani point of view, Abdullah was a 'useful idiot'. But he was useless from the Kashmiri point of view. In India, the Left gained by pretending to champion him while the Hindu Right gained by depicting him as seditious because, everybody knew, he was Nehru's chum. But, Abdullah was useless to his own people and they gained by his incarceration.
It was India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who sanctioned the shameful and illegal arrest of Kashmir’s elected CM.No. It was sanctioned by the Sadar-i-Riyasat of J&K at the prompting of the Cabinet of the State which, after Abdullah's dismissal, was headed by his own Deputy, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. Delhi insiders say that it was Kidwai who pulled the trigger, not Nehru.
In April 1964, Nehru had a belated change of heart, and released the Sheikh.This was foolish. Given the fallout from the Hazratbal incident the previous year, Pakistan's Ayub Khan believed that this was Delhi's way of signalling that India was ready to give up the Valley- which was a nuisance because its people were superstitious cretins- so as to concentrate on the Chinese threat. This precipitated the 1965 war which greatly imperiled the status of Indian Muslims. But that is why Kidwai had pulled the trigger on Abdullah. His fantasies were helpful only to Pakistan, not Kashmir. If Abdullah prevailed, Pakistan would gobble up the Valley and the Hindus would go to town on the Muslims in the rest of India. Indeed, the 'Custodian of Enemy Property' did harass some loyal Indian Muslims. The father, in Salman Rushdie's novel 'Midnight's Children', was harassed in this way. Indeed, that is why Rushdie had to leave his beloved Bombay.
Tragically, after Nehru’s death, the Sheikh was jailed again, and kept there for another seven years, as ordered first by Lal Bahadur Shastri, and then by Indira Gandhi.How was this tragic? It was salutary for Indian Muslims. Moreover, Muslims of the Valley had shown courage against Pakistani infiltrators while the Indian Army could boast of exemplary valor on the part of Muslim soldiers against the foreign foe.
After Indira Gandhi defeated the Pak army and set Bangladesh free, Hindu Indians lost their fear of Muslims as a 'fifth column' because though there can be no question that they were zealous in their piety they were not stupid. Only a cretin would want to join Pakistan- a genocidal and racist country on the way to becoming a failed state. It has now fallen behind Bangladesh- which it once looted and inflicted genocide upon.
Cretins like Guha may weep for Abdullah and think the duplicitous Pakistani narrative to be the testimony of Angels, but Indian Muslims reject such imbecility.
He was finally freed in 1972, a broken man, prepared to deal with New Delhi on any terms that New Delhi demanded.Why 1972? Guha doesn't tell us. The answer is that India had defeated and dismembered Pakistan.
In the years that their popularly elected leader was in jail, a deep sense of alienation permeated Jammu and Kashmir.If so, why didn't the Valley support the Pakistani infiltrators? It is a different matter that sensible people like having a choice of political parties and even a cretin can be a good figure-head for one such.
The distrust of New Delhi’s motives grew further in the 1960s and 1970s, as Congress governments at the Centre rigged elections and promoted corruption.Dynastic parties are corrupt. That is true. However, ideological parties can be cretinous. That is why Communism has all but disappeared. By contrast, a meritocratic political party with a 'good Governance' agenda can succeed. Modi has delivered J&K from thralldom to corrupt and incompetent dynasties which instrumentalize terrorism for political gain. They run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. As a Union Territory, J&K's administration can improve. The Police can do their job without worrying about the dynasts.
A brief window of hope was provided by Prime Minister Morarji Desai of the Janata Party, who in 1978 oversaw the first fair election in the Valley.Did J&K make great strides between 1978 and '82 (when Abdullah died)? No. Zia's hanging of Bhutto hurt the Kashmiri branch of Jamaat but with the beginning of the Afghan insurgency their stock would rise over the next decade. The Abdullah dynasty lived cocooned in its own fantasy world. Abdullah made his son, Farooq, his heir though he was a novice. This put Abdullah's son-in-law, the highly experienced G.M Shah, nose out of joint. Thus it was inevitable that the Party would split along factionalist lines.
But then, in 1980, the Congress returned to power, and the mischief began afresh. In 1983, Indira Gandhi used underhand means to unseat an elected state government.Guha is a historian. Historians are supposed to know the dates of important events. He doesn't. He says Farooq Abdullah was toppled in '83. Actually, it was '84. Indira played a part in it, to be sure, but it was G.M Shah, Farooq's brother-in-law, who was the prime mover.
Four years later, her son, Rajiv Gandhi, oversaw a blatantly rigged election. The leaders who fought and should have won some seats (had fairness prevailed) in that election went in disgust across the border, from where they began their jihad in 1989.So, they had to cross the border to begin their jihad. They couldn't do it while sitting in the Legislature and ordering the Police to turn a blind eye.
When Atal Bihari Vajpayee became prime minister in 1998, he had to deal with this long history of alienation and distrust in Kashmir. He sought to overcome it by supervising a free election in the state, by suggesting a bus link between the two divided parts of Kashmir, and by extending a hand of friendship to the people of the Valley.In other words, he did a deal with the Abdullah dynasty which made a lot of money as a result. This changed nothing as far as the Valley was concerned because that wealth did not trickle down.
Vajpayee offered humanity, democracy and pluralism as the three pillars of his government’s policy.No. He let the dynasty hold high posts so they could enrich themselves and their cronies.
His approach was in striking contrast to that of previous Congress governments, which had used corruption and factionalism to divide the people, and State power to suppress them.What else could Atal do? He needed the Abdullah's to prop up his coalition. But there were plenty of other corrupt dynastic satraps in his administration. India was shining only for the purpose of unjust enrichment. That is why Atal got the order of the boot.
In their own brute use of State power, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have followed the playbook of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi in Kashmir.In other words, Modi & Shah have followed the playbook of the Union of India since its inception and in every subsequent decade. However, in contrast to the past, their actions are scrupulously legal and wholly transparent. No corrupt deal has been struck. Parliamentary votes have not been traded for juicy sinecures or offices of unjust enrichment.
The abrogation of Article 370, they tell us, is in the best interests of the people of Kashmir, yet those very people are given absolutely no say in how that decision is made.On the contrary, those very people have absolutely as much say as any other Indian in that their elected representatives have a vote on the matter. Guha may not like the fact that the Constitution of India is unitary and that it is entirely a matter for the Union Government to decide what is or is not a State or Union territory. However, he has been calling for 'Constitutional patriotism' for quite some time now. Yet, at the first hurdle, he has become seditious to the Constitution of India and the intention of its framers.
The government converts the Valley into the largest prison in Indian history, where eight million people are shut up, their landlines and mobiles silenced, their access to food and medicines restricted.India was the largest prison in Indian history during the Emergency- when there was no external threat to the country. Currently, there is a clear external threat to Kashmir. What has been done is perfectly legal and justified by the circumstances. It does not amount to incarceration. Guha's hyperbole is of the Huccha Venkat type. It is hysterical and has no basis in fact.
Even former chief ministers are placed under arrest (in a chilling echo of August 1953).Only politicians who might pose a danger to public safety, or themselves be in danger, have been placed under house arrest. Guha is pretending that everybody- even ex CMs- has been arrested. He lives in a fantasy world.
Thousands of troops are flown in to make an already militarised zone look ever more like an occupied territory.Because this 'militarized zone' is under threat of external aggression. There are also a lot of troops in strategically important border areas. When the external threat increases, the number of troops increase. Britain had a lot of troops along its coast when Hitler was menacing its liberty. No doubt, Nazi propagandists- like Lord Haw Haw- represented this as a sign that the U.K was occupied by the minions of the Jewish plutocracy. Why is Guha, an Indian citizen, playing the part of a Lord Haw Haw?
What happened in Kashmir last week bodes ill for Indian democracy.No it doesn't. It is an expression of Indian democracy. Either things in J&K will improve or some other expedient will have to be sought for.
Laws outlive themselves, and might have to be modified or changed. However, the people who are to be affected by the change must be trusted, respected, and heard.They are trusted to vote for people who will give utterance to their voice in Parliament. There is a right to emigrate. But there is no right to secession. Guha's 'Constitutional Patriotism' entails this view.
I wish the President himself had thought a little before signing so blindly on the dotted line.The President is thoughtful. He is a former Supreme Court advocate. Guha is not thoughtful. He writes any shit that comes into his head and doesn't bother to read over what he writes and check his dates. He says here that Farooq Abdullah was toppled in '83. People my age remember it happened in '84. Guha was in India at the time. Why does he alone have a defective memory in this respect? The answer is that he is stupid and ignorant. In this, he is quite different from President Kovind.
He knew that millions of citizens whom this law would impact had been silenced beforehand.Nonsense! He knew that some Muslims in the Valley would fear this move and would say so in more or less hysterical terms such that Public Order would be put at risk. Thus his Home Minister took precautionary measures which, so far, have proved adequate.
Could he not have returned the order, and asked for a wider consultation in Kashmir, and with Kashmiris, before it was introduced in Parliament?No. Not if he was interested in upholding his oath of office. He is not required to pander to cretins like Guha. He has to put the interests of the country and the observance of the Constitution of India above any merely personal interest in how his actions are perceived.
Those Indians exulting at what just happened in Kashmir might reflect a little on the awful precedent it has set.Very true. The awful precedent is that corrupt, incompetent, dynasts who instrumentalize criminality can be disintermediated from Governance. Democracy does not necessarily mean being trapped in a shit-hole.
This abuse of State power to shut up and immobilise citizens could happen next to your district, your province, your leaders, your children.If your district, your province, your leaders or your children want to ethnically cleanse minorities or to accede to a country based on ethnic cleansing, then the State does not abuse its power in anyway by taking stern measures.
I concur entirely with Pratap Bhanu Mehta when he writes, about the government now in office: “This is a state that will make a mockery of democracy and deliberation. This is a state whose psychological principle is fear. This is a state that will make ordinary citizens cannon fodder for its warped nationalist pretensions”.The rest of us concur entirely that Guha, Mander, Mehta and other such 'public intellectuals' who were the Dynasty's 'useful idiots' are idiots, certainly, but wholly useless.
We have been warned.Guha & Co were warned that their 'long march through the Institutions' had ended in not just irrelevance but downright silliness. They ignored the warning. Now they are foaming at the mouth, the Academic disciplines, or University Departments, they represent are seen as utterly rabid.
No comments:
Post a Comment