 |
|
|
Time has lessened the impact of the murder of seven Kashmiri
Pandits in the valley. But the community's suffering continues.
It is there all the time, consuming and diminishing them day by
day. That the Pandits are refugees in their own country is a
testimony to political expediency which masquerades as governance.
The reasons for the killings are not difficult to guess. They are
part of the continuing process to divide the Kashmiris into Hindu
and Muslim. It is yet another blow administered to the pluralistic
ethos of Kashmiriyat. It is also an evidence of the desperation
that has taken over the fundamentalists and militants who find
themselves at the end of the road. Many parts of India that
experienced militancy went through a similar phase before the
militancy ended.
The plight of the Pandits has only worsened because they have been
used as pawns in the game which the various rulers and different
political formations have played in Srinagar and New Delhi. Mr
Jagmohan, now a BJP MP, encouraged the Pandits to leave the Valley
when he became governor of the state for the second time. Jammu
and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah has confirmed this. Mr
Jagmohan gave the Pandits air tickets, provided them with transport
and arranged financial and other help to ensure their journey to
Jammu. It was as if he wanted them to be out of the way to be able
to deal with militants. Did he want to communalise the situation,
plan to use the Pandits one day against the Hurriyat's demand for
independence? Whatever the reason, his rough methods provided a
spark to an already combustible situation.
Not many Pandits were willing to leave their homes, hearths and
neighbourhoods, where they had lived for years with the Kashmiri
Muslims. But most of them were assured that they could return after
the situation was brought under control. So good was their equation
with their Muslim neighbours that they entrusted their lands and
shops to them. Pandits in government service readily used the
opportunity to get transferred to Jammu. At no time did the Pandits
realise that their departure from the Valley would end the
prospects of their early return.
To put all the blame on Mr Jagmohan is, however, not fair. Some of
the militants too spared no effort to oust the Pandits from the
Valley. It suited their purpose of communalising the issue. Many
Pandits left out of fear; many were chased out. They had no
alternative. Practically the entire community now lives outside
the Valley.
But this exodus was not endorsed by most Kashmiri Muslims. It hurt
their non-communal sensitivities. Many still consider the Pandits
part of their ethos. However, it is sad but true that some have
now begun to agree with the fundamentalists' view that it was all
for the best. Seldom has any state seen the centuries' old ties
snapping in a matter of days.
The extremists have had their way, much to the disappointment of
many Kashmiri Muslims, who have seen the fabric of their common
culture torn apart. The houses or shops of the Pandits who left
have either been destroyed, burnt or forcibly occupied. Unsocial
elements who have become a law unto themselves do not want the
Pandits back.
The Hurriyat should have come to the rescue of the Pandits because
it claims to represent all the people in the state, Muslims and
Hindus alike, living in the Valley, Jammu or Ladakh. But its
behaviour has been that of compromise and complacency. It has
neither stopped nor condemned militants from committing vandalism
against the Pandits. Nor did it try to win the Pandits back. I
have often heard its leaders rationalising that the anger against
the Pandits was a fallout of the state's "exploitation by the
Dogras" and of the post-Maharaja rule when the Pandits occupied a
majority of the positions in government. For whatever reason, the
Hurriyat saw the Pandit community as dispensable.
Some Hurriyat leaders have, in fact, introduced religion to divide
the Kashmiris further. Jamaat-e-Islami leader Gillani has again
characterised the "movement for independence" in Kashmir as a
"jihad" (holy war). He has threatened Indian Muslims with
"consequences" if they do not participate in the 'holy war'. What
is worse, no Hurriyat leader has disowned Gillani. He has adhered
to this view as stanchly as to his avowal that Kashmir should be
part of Pakistan. Yet the sad part is that those who swear by the
demand for an independent Kashmir do not see any contradiction in
Gillani's observations. Nor do they find any dichotomy in the
Hurriyat's insistence on attending the meeting of the Organisation
of Islamic Conference (OIC). On the one hand, the Hurriyat sees
Jammu, with its Hindu majority, and Ladakh, with its Buddhist
majority, as parts of Kashmir. On the other, it wants to align
itself with a body that refuses to recognise the 120 million
Muslims in India.
If the Hurriyat leaders want to play a positive rule, they should
dissociate themselves from the OIC, which has harmed the cause of
Muslims everywhere through their rhetoric.
The Hurriyat has belatedly realised that it must carry the people
of Jammu along with it. But the Hindus they have selected for the
purpose are faceless. It is as if the party only wanted to go
through the motions of such an exercise. The office that the
Hurriyat has opened in Delhi has been of no consequence. It does
not disseminate information even on violations of human rights in
the Valley.
The real test, of course, is not how efficient the office is but
how secular the atmosphere in the Valley is. The criterion is the
treatment meted out to the Pandits. Their role in the past,
however reprehensible, is not the issue. The issue is their ability
to return to their homes. This is what will influence the thinking
in India. The Hurriyat will go down better with the people at
large if it attends to this problem instead of seeking admission to
the OIC.
(Kuldip Nayar is a well-known columnist.)
|
|
|