Peace Watch » Editor's Take, Point of view » Trifurcation – A Discourse from Jammu
Trifurcation – A Discourse from Jammu
PUNCHLINE
Discordant Discourses
Z.G. Muhammad
Kashmir, for past sixty seven years has been a cauldron of the ‘dominant’ discourses. In forties and fifties, the Communists ideologues conjured alternative discourse to erode the people’s narrative born in 1924. That was in concrete terms manifested in the 1932 resolution adopted on the
founding day of the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference. For subverting the Kashmir narrative, in fifties, the Hindu nationalists stirred agitation in Jammu against symbols of Kashmiri nationalism with the objective of strengthening their idea of India.
In the post 1990 scenario, some non-state subject NGO’s operating in the state, flirting with one after another “dominant discourse” have been engaged in wearing down the popular political narrative of the state. Talking about the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the state, in one breath they call Kashmir as compendium India and yet in another they set yet another discourse into motion by pronouncing Jammu and Kashmir as an ‘artificial state’ clubbed together hundred and sixty years back by the Dogra rulers. To undermine, the historical reality of the popular political narrative of the state, such organizations play upon sectarian sensitivities in the overwhelming majority and project their political aspirations as incongruous to each other. And through so-called academic sponsored assignments they endeavour to project various ethnic groups of the majority community as “sub-sub-nationalities” working for cross purposes so far as the popular political narrative of the state is concerned. Ostensibly, there are two objectives behind this whole exercise, one to becloud the importance of the ‘popular narrative’- drawing it’s strengthen from the history of the dispute and two to strengthening the discourse against the integration of the state- such as trifurcation of the State.
Immediately, after appointment of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, leader of the National Conference by Maharaja Hari Singh first as Chief Emergency Administrator then as Prime Minister, the discourse about ‘Kashmiri hegemony’ was set into motion by Jammu leaders with a particular mind-set. Abdullah’s appointment was made on the direction of the then Home Minister of India Sardar Patel after troops from New Delhi landed at Srinagar on 27 October 1947.
Since, then this discourse found various manifestations. Seen in right historical perspective, Praja Parshid agitation against the Article 370 was one such manifestation. The Hindu leadership of Jammu ‘was uncertain that in the event if a plebiscite is held majority of Muslims will vote against India. To quote Balraj Puri, “These fears bred ideas of division of the State and Zonal plebiscite in the minds of a section population. Provoked by such demands- for instance of the Praja Parishad, the Jammu counter part of the Jan Sangh. Abdullah had reacted sharply……The Parishad modified its stand into an apparently nationalistic demand of abrogation of Article 370.” (Kashmir Insurgency and After, Page 29).
It found another important manifestation in agitations over alleged ‘discrimination’ against Jammu in development and employment resulting in the appointment of a commissions like the one under Justice Sikiri. The allegations of Kashmiri hegemony and discrimination in late seventies found expression in floating ideas like creation of ‘Dugger Desh’ on the basis of the Dogri language and culture. The concept at best could encompass two and half districts and in as much as Jammu province on the whole was concerned the idea stood on a slippery slope. “Jammu province is torn by linguistic, cultural and caste division. The Chenab Valley is densely populated by Kashmir-speaking people. Gujjar’ and Pahari constitute bulk of population of Pir-Panchal range. As against this Kashmiri province is largely homogenous with its ninety percent population Kashmiri speaking.” The idea had not found many a taker but it was followed by yet another discourse ‘the trifurcation of the state” i.e. creating a separate of Jammu State and giving Ladakh a union territory status.
This discourse that goes against the integration of the state has ironically found takers in some political parties and trade bodies in Jammu. Last week (17 June 2015) for the first time Jammu Chamber of Commerce and industries (CCI) openly sought trifurcation of the state as panacea for economic problems of Jammu. “Be it AIIMS or all the issues related to welfare of Jammu”, it said, “The government has always been soft on the Valley while putting our region to all hardships. The CCI is of the opinion that under such circumstances trifurcation is the only way out.”
The demand for trifurcation from chamber of commerce brings three things into focus, one if they seek status of separate state for Hindu majority areas of the province, two, where does the Chenab Valley and Pir Panchal range that constitute “60.25 percent of entire geographical area and account for over seventy percent of total Muslim population of Jammu province” stand in terms of economic development when compared to Jammu district. So far growth and economic development of Chenab Valley and Pir Panchal range are concerned, as compared to the plains of the Jammu province, these hilly areas have suffered worst discrimination and dis-empowerment. Economic surveys of the state testify that far as development of Jammu district is concerned, it stands at number one and the hilly areas are at 23rd position.
Third, it also brings into focus the popular political narrative of the state and very subtly suggest the partition of the state almost in line with the Dixon Plan as solution of the Kashmir Dispute. In fifties, this plan had hogged international headlines. Owen Dixon after meetings with Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan had come up with the idea of “regional plebiscite.” ‘It was either “a plan for taking the plebiscite by sections and allocation of each section or area according to the results of the vote therein. Or, a plan by which it is conceded that some areas were certain to vote for accession to Pakistan and some for accession to India and by which, without taking to therein, they should be allotted accordingly and the plebiscite should be confined to uncertain area, which appeared to be the valley of Kashmir’.
Notwithstanding, demand of trifurcation raised by the Jammu CCI is against the integration of the State, still there is scope for debating it for finding amicable settlement of the dispute over the future of Jammu and Kashmir.
(Appeared in Greater Kashmir on 22-6-2015)
Filed under: Editor's Take, Point of view · Tags: Jammu Divison
Er Saifuddin Shangloo, Please read and reread few times the post of Zahid sahib that we are debating on and then read my comments with open mind. By the way history and it’s fall outs are interlinked and integrated to fundamental betrayals or non betrayals to the cause of national interest. And man you title hindu dictator founded the modern United and politically coherent state called Jammu and Kashmir and for his efforts to keep J&K an independent sovereign country, as it was, please go through the pages of history which have gone dry since 1947.
With your permission I analyse Anarchyism, a political concept which means that political institutions must wither away being tools of state oppression and self conscious citizens and society must govern independent of political institutions. In this context your few words seem like a riddle to solve, mainly when we talk and debate on established and documented facts of our unfortunate history, which we can not alter the content and fallout . In life what is highly important is to be intellectually honest and have courage to call a dog a dog. Human history has been created by we humans with our right and wrong decisions and being humans we can commit errors and blunders. But when with all human calculations of a certain level of quality we follow a certain direction with self oriented motivations, bring and breed on purpose disaster we call the person or persons in question traitors and not liberators. And those who give high moral ground to these traitors can either be innocent ignorants or sentimental fans if not fools. History has its own universal rules of judging wrongs of a leader mainly when he lands even a dog of his county in most uncertain citrcumstances. After prayers of hundreds of years our boat had reached on the harbour but one man stood up and threw it back into the ocean of uncertain times……Since even a dog lives with pain and horror the fall out when he barks at empty streets in curfew and innocent people crying on their dead…..
The narrative on kashmir politics and history changed for many uncertain narratives, yet to come, on the fateful day in 1938 when on the advice of Nehrue Abdullah Sheikh changed the very dynamics of the movement when he replaced Muslim conference by National conference. Thereafter it was a matter of time to let sovereign independent kashmir to land in its last days and uncertain times of inhumanity and oppression to dawn over the paradisiaque state of J&K. Maharaja wanted to keep the territorial integrity of the state intact with his genius formula of having prime minister with extensive powers from Muslim majority and Maharaja being head and guarantor of the independent sovereign J&K. But Abdullah Sheikh didn’t agree then Maharaja wanted to accede with Pakistan knowing the sentiments and Muslim majority in his state but again tall Abdullah Sheikh didn’t agree till uncertain times of raiders fell on state which led to armed intervention of india. There is no secret of the fact that the promise of plebicite was HOX incarnate to let the problem get obsolete over the time. ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE BELIEVED IT WERE EITHER FOOLS OR IGNORANTS OF WORLD HISTORY. Ram Chand KAK a visionary politician said that since army has entered in the state only army can get it out. Coming to trifucation of the state and agitation of Prija Parishid and recommandations of Sikri commission etc. This political manoeuvring was simply aimed at creating ground to remove Abdullah Sheikh from the affaires of the governance and let kashmir problem to enter into the phase second of obsoletism. Artificial division of the state in the name of sectarian sensitivity and hegemony of one region region (kashmir) over others is second political HOX after promise of plebicite. The policy makers in the south block knows it closely than ever that it can create a genuine political reason to come to the terms with the popular sentiment of independence of Kashmiris which they will never agree and consent. Now with the growing Indian coperation and relationship with Israel, the real master and writer of political scenario of European and USA foreign policy and the domination of political platform by pro Hindu nationalistic forces like RSS in the center there is little hope of any positive move on kashmir but on the contrary there are reasons to believe that our institutional independence will shrink further after the trade off of institutional independence by Abdullah Sheikh in the talks for resumption of Power in 1975 that very few people are aware of. The fact of the history is simple that the birth of Abdullah Sheikh then his entrance into the political arena of Kashmir politics was apocalyptic for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and it is likely to continue with ups and downs over the time till one day new world order will emerge in which people will have choice to make….