As soon as Shaikh Abdullah assumed control of Kashmir, he introduced a slogan that left little room for ambiguity: “Only one party – National Conference! Only one leader – Shaikh Abdullah! Only one agenda – Naya Kashmir!”
The meaning and motive behind this slogan were unmistakable. Shaikh aimed to establish a one-party rule in Kashmir, marginalizing the significance of Jammu and Ladakh. Even the simplest bureaucratic tasks for common people required endorsement from a National Conference worker. Obtaining basic services like adding names to ration cards or obtaining permits for religious pilgrimages became arduous without National Conference intervention.
A significant portion of government employees was immersed in National Conference membership drives, and officers were preoccupied with organizing party events. The National Conference’s influence extended to local administrative matters, with even school inspectors forming party branches.
The party’s manifesto was promoted using government funds, and the state budget was presented and ratified at National Conference general meetings. The annual budget of the state was even deliberated and passed during the party’s annual gathering held on June 1, 1951, in Srinagar. The “Aman Brigade” was launched by the National Conference, and its funding was overseen by the Kashmiri Militia.
Kashmiri Militia, was established by National Conference during the Muzahid (Pakistani tribesmen) attack, in October 1947. They were tutored in army warfare by the Bharatiya army and were given arms and ammunition. But, later the Militia turned into National Conference’s personal army and indulged in threatening the opponents of the National Conference. The Communist elements had also penetrated the Militia army. It comprises 6500 soldiers. Initially, it was known as ‘Bachau fauj’ (protection force). Women too had aggressively taken part in the Militia. Krishna Misri and Zuni Gujjari have played a pivotal role as part of the woman’s Militia.
The raising of the Militia or the Peace Force as it was also known, was a consequence of the turbulence which followed at the end of the British Raj in August 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession with Bharat in late October, but by then, the tribesmen as raiders, supported by the leaders of North – West Frontier as well as the newly formed Government of Pakistan had forged an attack on Kashmir. Once the Bharatiya soldiers began to arrive, they armed and trained the Militia. Some Militia members accompanied Bharatiya troops into battle. Initially, the airstrips were very basic and not sufficient for more aircraft to have safe lending. Hence, the role of the Militia was very crucial.
The most significant narrative that Pakistan and all separatist elements have to agree upon but would like to forget, is that Seventy-Five years ago, Kashmiris had taken to the streets to support the accession to Bharat, sloganeering “Hamlavar Khabardar, Hum Kashmiri Hain Taiyar.” But unfortunately, later in the Fifties, the National Conference turned it into a private army and the historical symbol of people’s movement to save and support their amalgamation with Bharat lost its purpose.
In fact, later, the people of the valley were not as frightened of the Bharatiya army or the police, as were of this Peace Brigade. Under Nation Conference rule, they began conducting like Gestapo (political police force) in Nazi Germany. Shaikh Abdullah used the same machinery in abandoning many across the border!!! The far more heart-wrenching was the plight of the political prisoners who had opposed him. They were made to undergo unnatural sexual assault by the other criminals and in return, the latter was given partial exemption from their penalties!!!
Basically, Shaikh Abdullah wanted to become an independent dictator. He did not really have any affinity with either Bharat or Pakistan. His sole motive was to gain power. Thus, he changed his stance as and when required. He kept stating his complete dedication to Bharat, from 1947 to 1952. He repeatedly announced that the annexation of Kashmir, in Bharat, is based on fundamental principles and can not be altered or canceled.
He had told Pandit Nehru in 1948, ” We ourselves have taken a decision to join hands with Bharat. Now, no one can break and separate us.” Again, on the 7th of March 1949, he announced, ” We have decided to work with and die for Bharat.” Thus, Shaikh Abdullah created public opinion that he was dedicatedly in tune with Bharat and very unfortunately, idealist Pandit Nehru was deceived by his Utopian presentation.
On one side, he continued with formal announcements about his commitment towards Bharat and simultaneously, endeavored to create public opinion for independent Kashmir. Immediately, within three months of annexation, on the 28th of January 1948, he had a word with American External Affairs officer – Warren Astin. On the 14th of April 1948, Shaikh interacted with Michael Davidson of “Scottesman” and commented that – ” The independence of Kashmir, with a guarantee from United Nations, seems to be the only solution.” Again in 1950, Shaikh had suggested to Sir Oven Dickson that – ” Independent Kashmir” is the only solution for this problem.”
Before independence, Shaikh Abdullah had created a perception that he was dead against hereditary rule and kingship. He had projected himself as a devoted democratic. He had depicted a picture of Kashmiri democracy. He had envisioned an elected parliament and it would comprise of the members selected by him!!! The opposition would have nil presence and if at all it existed, it would be for namesake. In Jammu, the democratic values were completely tormented and what existed was nothing else but Police Raj.
An English daily of Kolkata – ” The Statesman” was a huge supporter of Shaikh but even it had to write -” It appears like beginning of Police State.” Shaikh Abdullah’s power was not democratically appointed as yet. He was still serving as nominated Prime Minister by the Maharaja. Yet, he began taking the reins in his hand which only the elected government can act on and take decisions.
The most controversial decision was the “Big Land Estate Abolition Act”. It intended to seize people’s wealth (land) without giving any compensation. Under this act, the government would occupy the additional land owned, more than Twenty acres, and handed over to the landless farmers. The National Conference had narrated it in their manifesto for “Naya Kashmir”.
As per “Naya Kashmir” documents, the citizens would be granted every kind of fundamental right, freedom of the Press, Freedom to accumulate, Elected Representation, Right to Education, Equal opportunity to all, and Liberation from Economic Exploitation. Ironically, Shaikh Abdullah implemented the Land Abolition Act and overlooked other points and announcements.
A large section of the Jammu population had enrolled in the army. They had given their piece of cultivable land, on hire for others to cultivate. Shaikh Abdullah’s new proposal in “Naya Kashmir” was “Land to the Tiller.” The Abdullah Government occupied the “excess” land of the land owners and distributed it among the tillers. The majority of the affected landowners were Hindus and belonged to Jammu. Even the soldiers serving in the armed forces were engulfed in this “mission”. The Government refrained from offering any compensation for the taken away land. Moreover, if the acquisition was done for public welfare and the land occupied, remained with the state, it would have provided some solace to the affected people that they had contributed to the welfare cause. Instead, the land was grabbed from individuals and ‘gifted’ to another!!!
In all the Seventy plus years, our history has illustrated a picture of Shaikh Abdullah as one who was Secular, democratic, and Liberal in his outlook. The one who believed in the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the one who would vehemently oppose the hereditarian rule. But, was that the reality?
Shaikh portrayed himself to be secular till he needed the support of the rest of the Bharat. As soon as he understood that he had carved his own path, he discarded the veil of Secularism. While opposing Maharaja’s monarchy, he became revengeful towards Dogras, in general. Later, his venom for Dogras turned into resentment towards Bharat and Bharatiya nationalism. The perception of Bharatiya nationalism was substituted by Kashmiri nationalism.
Shaikh obstreperously blathered about ‘Kashmiriyat’ but his conduct did not assert it. Shaikh made Urdu the state language, whereas, it was not the mother tongue of any of the three regions. Dogri was spoken in Jammu, Bhoti in Ladakh, and Kashmiri in Kashmir valley. At least in the valley, the Kashmiri language, their local language, could have been implemented as the official language, but there too, Shaikh gave importance to Urdu over it as according to him, Urdu was the language of the Muslims.
Pandit Mauli Chandra, director of the Bharatiya Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in Delhi, had opined that earlier, both Hindi and Urdu used to be taught in the state schools. Hindi, was the medium of instruction till class tenth. The larger section of the students belonged to the Hindi medium in Jammu. Yet, Shaikh imposed Urdu, as the official medium of instruction, and the government grant to Hindi medium schools was stopped.
Shaikh Abdullah had deceptively created a false perception of his liberal and secular convictions. But, sometimes in opportunity or out of anger and anxiousness, his real belief would get unveiled. He had once said in Delhi that none of the regions of the princely state had a Hindu majority!!!
The truth is, as per the 1941 census and in 1947, the Hindu population in Jammu was 84%. Muslims made up a meager 7% of the total population and the rest were Sikhs and others. It was popularly said that – ” Shaikh Abdullah was fanatic and Communal in Kashmir, as he would reach nearer to Jammu, he would turn into a Communist and reaching Delhi, he would become a Nationalist.!!!”
On the 5th of August 1952, while debating on Pandit Nehru’s address on the Kashmir issue, another member of the Rajya Sabha from Odisha – Surendra Mohanty, revealed the hidden truth about Shaikh’s mindset. The idea behind creating a political outfit, as projected by Shaikh, was to eradicate the hereditarian rule. Truthfully, that was acceptable as Bharat, post-independence, was declared a democracy.
The state government of Kashmir published a book – “The case for the abolition of hereditary monarchy.” Narrating the content and motive of the book, Mohanty had put forward – “Glancing over the Arab history, we understand that the cause of Human Rights has been advocated.” It further says that – “Hazrat Mohammad had raised the question and emphasized equality among men. He opposed the inherent interests and put forward the example of Democracy, in front of the world. Hazrat Mohammad did not approve of Hereditary rule.”
Citing this, Mohanty narrated that Shaikh Abdullah had stated in the Fundamental Rights Committee of Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly, ” The history of Islam, post-Hazrat Mohammad’s death, is an ideal apotheosis in front of the world. It has illustrated that the first Khalifa, appointed after his death, was neither his son nor any of his relatives.” Mohanty raised a question what was the logic behind stating this?!!! How was this anecdote related to Kashmir?!!! Above all, why did Shaikh Abdullah, who claimed to be secular, present a narrative of Islam as an ideality?!!! Mohanty further added, on the floor of parliament, that – “it appears that those who scream of Secularism in the loudest voice, have Communalism filled in their veins.” He pointed out that every move of Shaikh, speaks volumes of his hidden intention, to change the demography of Jammu and create it into a Muslim-majority region. Firstly, the Jammu district was fragmented and the Muslim-majority areas were created as Doda and Rajouri. Hence, in the future, they could be amalgamated with the valley.
Secondly, the new posts created by the administration were reserved for Muslims. Mohanty unveiled the Gospel truth that – “Shaikh, wanted to nurture Communalism under the veil of Secularism, wished to impose one-party dictatorship in name of democracy and dismantle the cultural and historic relations and bonding on the pretext of people’s voice.” Last, but not the least, history was yet to see, that the genesis behind Shaikh Abdullah’s rise and his movement, was annihilating the hereditary rule but what later on followed under National Conference rule, was nothing else than the Abdullah family rule!!!
In conclusion, the historical portrayal of Shaikh Abdullah as a secular and liberal leader is questionable. His actions often contradicted his professed values, revealing his true motives and ambitions. It is essential to critically analyze the complex nature of his rule and its impact on the region’s sociopolitical landscape.
Madhvi Bhuta is the National Executive of BJP Mahila Morcha and a Columnist on various Forums.
