Nearly 5000 years of civilization - This is Kashmir

It was enlightening to learn that the Kashmir Civilization dates back nearly 5000 years, in which Kashmiri people cultivated their ways of being and sense of their identity. I found an interesting piece of literature, that not only sheds light on who is who, but goes beyond.

"KASHMIRI NATIONALISM MYTH OR REALITY" - Bashir Assad

Ace writers and scholars have offered several explanations to the separatism (political mobilization) in Kashmir and many others have tried to peep into the contemporary history to trace the origin of separatism and separatist tendency in Kashmir. A few, of course, have devised options for the resolution of Kashmir problem in the historical perspective of the problem, especially in view of the declining violence and the outbreak of peace in the state. Not for the first time, there is a widespread belief that this round of talks could actually lead to a time-bound and final settlement of this long-festering dispute between the two South Asian states. However, any solution has to be acceptable not just to the governments but also to the people. What the final shape will be, only time will tell.

There are various options being considered, including converting the Line of Control into an international border, or dividing the huge state into territories along religious lines and then parcelling them out - the Muslim valley to Pakistan, Hindu Jammu and Buddhist Ladakh to India. Notwithstanding the intractableness of the Kashmir problem, the question, however, arises. Can Kashmir be divided if the need arises? No, the Kashmiri leaders are opposed to any such idea not because of the political hegemony over their brethren but because of the Kashmiri nationalism.

Before discussing Kashimiri nationalism it merits a mention here that in the history of political philosophies, there has never been an idea so abused to suit everyone's need as the term 'nationalism.' Albert Einstein called it juvenile delinquency. The concept of nationalism has killed more people than any other idea in human history. When the Government of India imposes its will on the state of Jammu & Kashmir, it does so in the name of 'Indian nationalism' a nationalism born during India's freedom struggle. India insists that Kashmir is part of India, that Kashmiri nationalism is nothing more than a subset of Indian nationalism. When Kashmiris talk of an independent Kashmir they do so in the name of Kashmiri nationalism. And Kashmiri nationalists insist that all Kashmiris, irrespective of religion or region, are part of Kashmir and there is no nationalism beyond or below Kashmiri nationalism.

These Kashmiri nationalists offer a very unique explanation to the variant of separatism in Kashmir which has roots in the ancient history. They describe the contemporary history since 1947 as vague and illusive. It was highlighted more than once by the Kashmiri nationalists headed by Muhammad Yasin Malik, Chairman J&K Liberation Front during the recent Safar-e-Azadi. Immaterial of peoples voice as the basis of authority to govern and as a basis of political leadership in Kashmir, in principle and in procedure being absent, the fact remains that the strongest voice in Kashmir is of the Kashmiri nationalist leader M. Yasin Malik.

Here we are supposed to discuss the Kashmiri nationalism in its entirety as put forward by the liberation front leader M. Yasin Malik. Let us exemplify the Kashmiri nationalism in its historical perspective. First, the history of India dates back to Mohanjhodaro and Harappa civilization which is only 4000 years old when the Kashmiri recorded history is 4900 years old. Kashmiri civilization is even older than the Mesopotamia civilization. Second; Kashmiri civilization based on Shivism is unique in sum and substance as it would not be influenced by the Indian Hinduism or for that matter the Budhuism. In Kashmir Shivism, Shiva was the ultimate reality and the essence of all that there is in the world. There was nothing else but Shiva, therefore there was no subject or object. This is exactly what was reflected in Kashmiri Sufism after so many centuries when Rishi order was established in Kashmir by Sheikh Noor ud Din fondly remembered as Nund Reshi and Lalleshwari fondly known as Lalla Ded.

Now civilizations had to exist congenially, then how did the clash of civilizations of India and Kashmir begin? There are two explanations given to this kind of clash. One; Shivism in Kashmir was not be influenced by Hinduism in India. There are eighteen shaloks of the Bhagwat Gita and the Kashmiri Shivism had thirteen of its own having no resemblance with the Bhag watGita. Two; Hindus of India accepted Lord Rama as their Bhagwan but the Shiv Bhakts of Kashmir didn't, why? It is said that the third but most beloved wife of Raja Dashrat , Kaykee was the daughter of a Kashmiri Pandit. She was desirous to see her son Bharat to be on the throne. However, it would not happen and Lord Rama after completing 14 years exile became the king. Here starts the clash between Kashmiri Pandits and Indian Brahmans. One more thing which too merits a mention is that Nag Arjun, a tribal chief was not acceptable to the Kashmiris because of being Indian Brahmin. He had to wait at the outer borders of Kashmir for six months and when he accepted the worship of Lord Shiva only then he was given entry into the vale of Kashmir

Then came Buddhism. As the vale of Kashmir was known as Sarada Peeth, the seat of the goddess of learning, the Buddha himself is reported to have said that this beautiful valley would be the best place for meditation and prayer. Buddhism came to Kashmir soon after Buddha's time. Asoka was the first great royal patron of Buddhism in Kashmir. In the third century B.C., he created the capital of Kashmir at Puranadhishthana (now called Pandarethan) near present-day Srinagar. He built hundreds of chaityas and viharas and settled 5,000 Buddhist monks in the valley. Scholars and learned monks converged at Harwan and stayed for six months to discuss and interpret sacred Buddhist texts. This was one of the greatest meetings of Buddhist intellectuals the world had seen. But this too would not change the demography of Kashmiris who continued to worship Lord Shiva. But this never means that the Kashmiri civilization was too rigid to accept changes. In fact, the society was built on a flexible cultural transition and every traveler had some sort of impinging ability and would leave some imprints on the society. The culture was open and receptive to the ideas, that is why Lord Budha himself made the aforementioned assertions. We can only assert, although Shivism was dominant it was flexible at the same time and within its spiritual influence one could perceive the influence of Budhism as well.

My point is that this rich philosophical tradition and the resultant cultural openness had definite implications for the religious orientation of the people. Religion, therefore, could never acquire a rigid form in Kashmir which one would observe specifically at the time when Islam was introduced in Kashmir. This indicates the flexibility of the philosophical tradition and cultural openness. The rigidity of Indian civilization was never felt in Kashmir, as such it was always a separate entity. My point is that separatism runs in blood and veins of Kashmiris.?

Kashmiri Hindu is universally recognized as Kashmiri Pandit not as Kashmiri Hindus. In the same manner Islam did not mark any break in the cultural and philosophical tradition, though it brought about great transformation in its society. It was in quite resemblance with the philosophical way of thinking of Kashmiris. In my earlier write-ups I had more than once written that the change over to Islam in Kashmir was a gradual process of social transition. However, this cultural openness, philosophical sensibility, idealistic humanism and abiding faith in the grace of God, put together form the basis of Kashimiri identity best envisaged in the composite culture. Is this not separatism.

We have the Sufi order of Islam which played a great role in laying down the humanist foundations of Islam in Kashmir. The Sufi order was a continuity of the old tradition of Shaivism and the new ideas of Islam. Again separate from the rest civilizations. Let me exemplify this; the Mughal empire was the second largest Muslim empire of the world. But Kashmiris never accepted their domain willfully, instead fought with them for sixteen years to protect and preserve their separate identity.

Now let me discuss mobilisation along religious lines in Kashmir. Religious collectivity has been recognized as a specific entity suffering from material deprivations, the eradication of which could be met through measures such as political representation. Political mobilisation along religious lines( religious collectivity) in Kashmir started in late sixties or early seventies when Jamat-e- Islamia was founded. The Jamat clerics and missionaries like other nationalist forces demanded right to self determination but with religious overtones to implement Shariah (Islamic Rule). It had some acceptability to the extent of Islamic research but was never accepted as a political force which would be an alternative to Sheikh Abdullah's National Conference or Late Maqbool Bhat's Liberation Front. This is the real separatism of Kashimiri people. Anyway, had the mobilisation by the religious community been massive and visible and had the counter mobilisation by the opposing community been weak, the state in all probability would have conceded the demand. Let me clear it again; the demands made were legitimate but had a religious cover. My point is that the claim to nationhood or nationality by a religious collectivity willy nilly implies the process of cultural homogenization, that is, evolving and imposing a common life-style.

I hold no brief either for communal divisions or calls for independence. But I firmly believe that Kashmiri nationalism advocated by Muhammad Yasin Malik and his cohorts is the best way of representing the wishes and aspirations of the Kashimiri people. In fact, considering that Kashmiris keep harping on how important freedom or the right to self-determination is, surely they must be the first to recognise the rights of Jammu or Ladakhis (or for that matter, the people of Gilgit, Baltistan, and other regions in Kashmir) to make similar demands. Especially since there is no guarantee of religious freedom!

There is no doubt that the very concept of nationalism will be thoroughly tested and re-examined in the decades ahead and hopefully the world will come up with a better ideology to strengthen states.

*(The author can be mailed at bashirassad @rediffmail.com)