WEB Magazine Sections Interactive Features Regulars Resources RSS
A Tragedy Without An End
Today, the role of mujahideen in propping up a miniscule separatist movement in J&K is acknowledged even by those who were its organisers but, sadly, ten years later I wonder if we will ever learn from history

Kashmiri Pandits, the peaceful followers of non-violence are victims twice over. First, they lost out to religious zealots and terrorists who forced them to flee in fear from their homes and, second, they have lost out by languishing in poorly run refugee camps, that have deprived them of their remaining dignity.

What is merely a statistic for the rest of the world is a very personal experience for me. My family had lived in Kashmir since antiquity. I was born in Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), in a house which had been our family home for over 150 years. My parents relocated in 1954 to a newer dwelling in Srinagar, and after retirement in 1975 wanted nothing more than just to live their sunset years in the land of their forefathers. In spite of the fact that their son – their only biological child – moved to the US, they never even once thought of moving permanently here even though they frequently visited my adopted country to be with their grandchildren from time to time.

Their world, as the world of other Kashmiri Pandits - who are in a minority in the valley – fell apart when the armed insurgency started in 1989-1990. What the world saw then as a demand for separation was in reality a cleverly cloaked jihad for religious and ethnic cleansing. Kashmiri Pandits became its first victims.

My parents like most other Pandits left with not much more than the clothes on their backs and made it to safety in New Delhi. Unfortunately, my father could never overcome the trauma of forced exile and displacement. He died in New Delhi not too long after reaching there. It was not until June 11, 1999 that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India would declare the turmoil of Pandits as "near genocide", but even then that pronouncement was mostly ignored by the Indian civil society not yet ready to accept that true version of events that took place in Kashmir in 1989-1990.

Today even those who organized the insurgency in Kashmir from late 1980s and early 1990s acknowledge the role of mujahideen in propping up a miniscule separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir. The former prime minister of Pakistan-administered "Azad Jammu and Kashmir" (AJK), Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, had this to say on May 15, 2005:

"Jihadi groups have caused the worst damage to the Kashmir cause. But militancy has benefited the Kashmir cause because the cause had almost died and militancy gave it a new life."

This man should know. After all, he is the executive that established a new budget line item for the "Kashmir Liberation Cell" in AJK Budget in 1987 and got it endorsed by the AJK Legislative Assembly subsequently. It was while talking about these funds, which paid for fidayeen (suicide squads) and other means of death and destruction in the Indian side of Kashmir, that a visiting former terrorist from Indian Kashmir commented in the joint session of the AJK Assembly on June 3, 2005:

"The romantic aura created by AJK leadership about militancy had attracted very talented Kashmir youth who later lost their lives."

What was left unsaid was how these terrorists and thugs, trained and armed by money raised in AJK and elsewhere, destroyed families and lives of civilians who neither supported jihad nor the gun culture that was let loose in Kashmir.

Let me take you back ten years when we arranged a conference on the same subject on these hallowed grounds of the U.S. Legislature. It was an event that had the bi-partisan support of Congressmen Rob Andrews, a Democrat, and Bill McCollum, a Republican. This was well before 9/11 and well before everyone actually believed us that there was a jihad underway in Kashmir – many knowledgeable people who thought they knew a lot about the Kashmir issue were unprepared to accept that new ground realities of a changed neighborhood were affecting geo-politics of the entire region surrounding Kashmir.

But three exceptionally wonderful people have to be acknowledged. First, Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post columnist, who wrote on February 16, 1990 that Kashmir was being drawn into a "global intifada" movement by Islamists who were in a majority in a tiny region of India known for its secular traditions in the past. Second, the late Mary McGrory, who wrote in a column in the Washington Post on August 27, 1992: "Kashmiri Pandits have been driven off their ancestral lands by Islamic guerrillas who wish to annex Kashmir to the crescent of fundamentalist countries in the area." And finally Congressman McCollum, who chaired a Special House Republican Task Force on Terrorism, came out on May 21, 1994 with an authoritative analysis of terrorist organizations in Kashmir operating at the behest of the Pakistani intelligence (ISI).

Again, in the words of Ms. McGrory, "In Kashmir, an earthly paradise, blameless people are suffering hellish persecution not for anything they did but for being who they are. The Kashmiri Pandits, a minority Hindu sect that has lived in Kashmir for 5,000 years, would like to go home."

Let me conclude by reading you the last paragraph from the speech I made at that historic conference on June 28, 1995 in the U.S. Capitol:

"Let me leave you with following thoughts. If people as diverse as Charles Krauthammer and Mary McGrory can agree on what has happened to Kashmiri Pandits, if Congressmen McCollum and Andrews can stand on the same platform and talk about Pandits and about other victims of global terrorism, then surely we are making a humble beginning. Perhaps there is some hope that all is not lost yet. Perhaps lessons from this painful experience can be translated to this country so that American citizens do not have to suffer like Kashmiri Pandits. Let us hope that incidents in New York and Oklahoma City are not repeated. We do not wish on Americans what has happened to Kashmiri Pandits. Terrorism is evil. We have to stop it in all its forms and shapes, and wherever it happens. That, in my opinion, is the greatest challenge the civilized society faces in the new world order."

Sadly, ten years later I wonder if we will ever learn from history. The tragedy of Kashmiri Pandits appears truly without an end.

Vijay K. Sazawal, Ph.D. is president, Indo-American Kashmir Forum (IAKF), Washington, DC. This article is adapted from a speech given by him at an event organised by The Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism (FACT) in the U.S. Congress, Rayburn House Building on July 11, 2005

Filed In:
Authors: Vijay K. Sazawal
Tags: J&K: Kashmiri Pandits--The Forgotten People
Section: National
Subsection: Opinion
Places: J&K
Translate into:
 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Jul 13, 2005 12:00 AM
1
The just cause of Kashmiri Pandits should have wide spread sympathy and support. It does not need any help from that acerbic Zionist Charles Krauthammer.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jul 14, 2005 12:00 AM
2
It shows how secularism operates in India ruled by congress since Independence. A person calling himself Hindu is communal where as a muslim preaching Jihad and killing people is considered secular. No wonder that RSS / VHP are gaining popularity in India
R. Pal
New York, United States
Jul 14, 2005 12:00 AM
3
R.Pal

>> A person calling himself Hindu is communal where as a muslim preaching Jihad and killing people is considered secular

Is this meant to be a joke? Can you show me anyone who called all hindus as communal and a "muslim preaching Jihad and killing" as secular?
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Jul 15, 2005 12:00 AM
4
==>Kumar

One e.g. The media goes on and on about how communal, how dangerous RSS is etc etc. The way they describe RSS one could almost be forgiven for thinking that RSS is another al qaeda. But for all this reporting what has RSS done to deserve such reporting? Their only singnificant contribution with regard to 'communalisim' was in getting BJP to change the history books. A crime of which Congress, communist et all have been guilty of.
RSS consists of a bunch of sincere old men who since they are honest give all the wrong sound bytes to the hypocritical media. The media never details the good activities of RSS like how they are the most organized in relief operations (much better than the NGO's), how during relief operations they have mostly provided relief to everybody irrespective of their religon, how recently they were responsible for saving some christian preists, how they went about rehabilitating backward tribes etc. none of their good activities ever get highlighted instead all we hear about is how RSS is the communal because they are aginst minority appeasement and they want Uniform Civil Code. Duh!
Compare this with the coverage given to a 'Simi' or a 'Deoband Darul Uloom' by the media. These organizations are genuinely dangerous and as recently proved 'Simi' had a hand in the Ayodhya attack and was most probably was also responsible for the Ghatkopar blast as well as the akshardham blast. And yet it is only RSS that gets all the offesnsive coverage. In fact when BJP targeted 'Simi' (in a much more civilized manner than the way Arjun Singh targeted RSS) BJP had to suffer brickbats from the pseudo secular media.
When the Gujrat police killed Ishrat in an encounter, the whole media and congress went ballistic after the BJP calling it the killing of an innocent girl, communal act etc yet when she was proven to have links with the terrorist outfit the same pseudo secular media suddenly went silent.
When RSS talks about Hindus should vote like this etc they are called communal but when any Muslim outfit talks about muslims voting en bloc that's preserving their minority rights.
The reservation offered by AP govt. to Muslims is not communal but offer something like this to Hindus then all hell breaks loose.
Muslim body claiming Taj is legitimate but Hindu body claiming Ayodhya is communal.
So on and on and on.
The saddest part is people like me who are and were firm believers of secularisim now are talking about hindus, muslims etc becuase of the pseudo secularists and UPA. It's a shame what's happening in our country in the name of secularisim.
Deep
delhi, India
Jul 15, 2005 12:00 AM
5
Deep,

Instead of saying anything about RSS/VHP/Bajrangdal, I will say the following:

Minority appeasement is communal.
AP's Muslim reservations are communal.
Any SIMI participation in attacks on temples is far worse than communal, it is terroristic and sacrilegious.
Opposing UCC is communal and retrogressive.
Deobund Darul Ulum is sectarian, and its pronouncements are apt to be communal.
Any sectarian body claiming the Taj is communal. It is a national monument, not a shrine.

If any of the above is justified on grounds of "secularism", it is up to us to counter such a claim. If patently communal policies are called "secular", the intent often is to defame and weaken the concept of secularism.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jul 15, 2005 12:00 AM
6
Deep,
>> The media goes on and on about how communal, how dangerous RSS is etc etc

The entire literate and speeches of RSS and its related outfits is full of hate rhetoric to drive away non-hindus from the country, teaching them lessons, ridiculing the muslim relief camps in gujarat (with statements like 'should we now give relief to those who follow the policy of "we five, ours twentyfive" - by no less a person than a CM) etc. The media believes in legitimate freedom of religion and providing a sense of belonging to the nation to people of all religions/castes etc. The RSS wants entire nation to plunge into a communal choas and bloodshed - to teach 'them' a lesson. The danger is, even if a reasonable chuck of population heeds to the RSS, there will be mayhem, riots, bloodshed, gang-rapes etc on innocent citizens. Things like Haj Subsidy etc may be argued as appeasement but not dangerous in nature. Also, the RSS wants to maintain status quo and subtly oppose all attempts to bring in the dalits/STs/bacwards to mainstream with fair representation in power, jobs and all walks of life. They never have a word of concern for dalit women paraded naked, raped etc - leave alone protesting about it.

>> RSS consists of a bunch of sincere old men who since they are honest give all the wrong sound bytes to the hypocritical media.
>> The media never details the good activities of RSS like how they are the most organized in relief operations (much better than the NGO's), how during relief operations they have mostly provided relief to everybody irrespective of their religon, how recently they were responsible for saving some christian preists, how they went about rehabilitating backward tribes etc


But again, if you truly believe what you are doing is right, I think you do not have to bother about what media reports. ButI think a sincere and honest evaluation is required by themselves if all they are doing is right, keeping in mind, the values such a basic human dignity, justice, equality, tolerance, truth etc by FIRST rising above sectarian/religious/casteist considerations . If you look at the dalit websites, they complain that they dont even have a voice in the media and any activities by them is labelled as sectarain and casteist. The media is filled with the subtle and not-so-subtle supporters of the Congress/BJP/Left. Atleast these three parties need not complain about the media.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
7
Kumar writes:

>>But again, if you truly believe what you are doing is right, I think you do not have to bother about what media reports. ButI think a sincere and honest evaluation is required by themselves if all they are doing is right, keeping in mind, the values such a basic human dignity, justice, equality, tolerance, truth etc by FIRST rising above sectarian/religious/casteist considerations . If you look at the dalit websites, they complain that they dont even have a voice in the media and any activities by them is labelled as sectarain and casteist. The media is filled with the subtle and not-so-subtle supporters of the Congress/BJP/Left. Atleast these three parties need not complain about the media.

Aren’t dalit websites a means of getting their viewpoint out to the public? Can’t they start their own newspapers and organize? So what if the elite media supports major political parties?
Old Mac
???, United States
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
8
Ghulam writes:

>>Instead of saying anything about RSS/VHP/Bajrangdal, I will say the following:

>>Minority appeasement is communal.
>>AP's Muslim reservations are communal.
>>Any SIMI participation in attacks on temples is far worse than communal, it is terroristic and sacrilegious.
>>Opposing UCC is communal and retrogressive.
>>Deobund Darul Ulum is sectarian, and its pronouncements are apt to be communal.
>>Any sectarian body claiming the Taj is communal. It is a national monument, not a shrine.

>>If any of the above is justified on grounds of "secularism", it is up to us to counter such a claim. If patently communal policies are called "secular", the intent often is to defame and weaken the concept of secularism.

I will take up the challenge to respond to the claims.
First, how is the word “appeasement” exactly being used in this context?
Second, Minorities are voting citizens. Taking their rights and interests into account in formulating public policy is not only politically required but is also wise; it gives them a stake in a peaceful and prosperous society.
Third, AP can govern itself in the way it sees fit; Non AP people mind their own business
Fourth, Sacrilegious or not, destruction of life or property is criminal and thus has no excuse. Competent law enforcement needs to come down (legally) on them like a ton of bricks.
Fifth, opposing the context and the manner in which UCC is implemented is not communal; opposing any gratuitous provisions in it intended merely to humiliate is not communal
Sixth, any group of people can get together on any common interest, as long as it is not patently criminal, to argue their case to the public by peaceful means
Finally, anybody who claims Taj should not worry about the Secular/Communal divide; they ought to worry about the Sane/Insane divide.
Old Mac
???, United States
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
9
Deep writes:

>> RSS consists of a bunch of sincere old men who since they are honest give all the wrong sound bytes to the hypocritical media. The media never details the good activities of RSS like how they are the most organized in relief operations (much better than the NGO's), how during relief operations they have mostly provided relief to everybody irrespective of their religon, how recently they were responsible for saving some christian preists, how they went about rehabilitating backward tribes etc

RSS’s few charitable acts for public relations window dressing followed by loud wails that they don’t get good PR and that their murderous ideology shouldn't be scrutinized turns even their cynicism into low grade comedy.

>>One e.g. The media goes on and on about how communal, how dangerous RSS is etc etc. The way they describe RSS one could almost be forgiven for thinking that RSS is another al qaeda….

RSS is another Al Queda with one difference, however. RSS picks on people with no voice. Al Queda picks on people with global media megaphones and missiles.

>>RSS consists of a bunch of sincere old men who since they are honest give all the wrong sound bytes to the hypocritical media.

RSS consists of bunch of cowardly old men who indoctrinate ignorant and idle young men with latent criminal tendencies into a murderous ideology.

>>Muslim body claiming Taj is legitimate but Hindu body claiming Ayodhya is communal.
So on and on and on.

One involves a ridiculous legal claim in court. The other involves a homicidal insurrection.
Old Mac
???, United States
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
10
Old Mac,

>> how is the word “appeasement” exactly being used in this context?

Favorable treatment accorded to Muslims, which is not accorded to other communities, would be appeasement. Examples would be Haj subsidies, or moving the Parliament in the Shah Bano case in order to nullify a Supreme Court decision. Equitable treatment of Muslims is all that is required or justifiable for a political party in order to be in the running for Muslim votes.

>>AP can govern itself in the way it sees fit.

Reservations are anathema to modern democracies, but a ruling from the SC on this would be interesting.

>>Sacrilegious or not, destruction of life or property is criminal.

Agreed.

>>opposing the context and the manner in which UCC is implemented is not communal; opposing any gratuitous provisions in it intended merely to humiliate is not communal

All communities would hopefully be fully represented in the process to formulate and to implement UCC, if and when the time comes.

>>any group of people can get together on any common interest.

All I meant was that we should not be surprised if a communal body's pronouncements are communal.

Finally, the Taj is a national monument and should remain in the hands of the government.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
11
old mac :
"RSS’s few charitable acts for public relations window dressing followed by loud wails that they don’t get good PR and that their murderous ideology shouldn't be scrutinized turns even their cynicism into low grade comedy."

I dont think they are few . Their charitable activities are sizable and they have mobilised and spent thousands of crores on charity work. Perhaps for a prejudiced ranter like you charity is only when christian missionaries do it.
Kiran
Hyderabad, India
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
12

This is to remind readers that the topic is the dispossession of Kashmiri Hindus, not controversies surrounding the RSS. There's just no way there could be a link bewteen what the RSS says and does, and the Islamic terror that's been raging in Kashmir from at least 1989. I would point out that the initial victims of this terror were Hindus, without a doubt. Now, the victims are Moslems or anyone who 'thinks like a Hindu' i.e accepts Indian democracy and secularism, and is well disposed to being part of India. Thousands of workers and activists of the National Conference and the PDP, apart from ordinary civilians, have been slaughtered.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
13
Ghulam writes:

>>Favorable treatment accorded to Muslims, which is not accorded to other communities, would be appeasement. Examples would be Haj subsidies, or moving the Parliament in the Shah Bano case in order to nullify a Supreme Court decision. Equitable treatment of Muslims is all that is required or justifiable for a political party in order to be in the running for Muslim votes.

Appeasement means a policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace, a/k/a blackmail. “Appeasement” necessarily implies Muslims as enemies/potential enemies, to which I object. Muslims never said without Haj subsidies or nullification of Shah Bano’s case, they would breach the peace. Haj subsidies are a bad idea; but nothing to get all bent out of shape about. Besides, how many non-Muslims would turn down free money? The subsidies can be interpreted a government’s small and tangible way to redress past discrimination against a minority group. Shah Bano case was a deliberate political interference in a legal decision by Rajiv Gandhi’s government to curry favor with the conservative Muslim leadership. Shame on Congress party for superceding its electoral interest over the welfare of divorced muslim women. Although, I suspect that decision would have been ignored in the Indian tradition of ignoring laws. However, Congress’s transparently manipulative gambit didn’t threaten the future of the Republic nor was it Muslim fault. In conclusion, I would argue that if the country scrupulously honored everyone’s rights as stated in the Constitution, including Muslims and did not discriminate along religious lines in allocating benefits and burdens (which it still does even today), then Muslims wouldn’t complain. Even if they did, those complaints would fall on deaf ears.
Old Mac
???, United States
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
14
Ghulam further writes:

>>>>AP can govern itself in the way it sees fit.

>>Reservations are anathema to modern democracies, but a ruling from the SC on this would be interesting.

As soon as India has a modern democracy, we can talk about it. This issue is way too important to be satisfied with the expected incoherent dribbling of the Supreme Court. I don’t favor “reservations” in the US but I do in India. Why such a contradiction? By the fact US has vast opportunities and a socially fluid structure. India has neither. In modern US, someone’s village, religion, language, father’s name and caste do not affect American lives. However, they not only affect but also determine the vast majority of Indian lives even today. Therefore, until a general awareness of rights and opportunities through education is achieved, reservations are an imperfect but a good faith means of overcoming a structural Indian competitive disadvantage: the untapped potential of the hundreds of millions of brains and bodies from "wrong" castes.

Some people, used to generations of caste privileges, will complain. But expanded opportunities can address legitimate injustice suffered by the previously privileged. Something to keep in mind next time we spend billions of dollars on Aircraft Carriers rather than on schools or universities. In the end, just has America had to sacrifice 600,000 lives to expiate its national sin of slavery, India will need to sacrifice to expiate its national sin of caste and religious discrimination.

>>>>Opposing the context and the manner in which UCC is implemented is not communal; opposing any gratuitous provisions in it intended merely to humiliate is not communal

>>All communities would hopefully be fully represented in the process to formulate and to implement UCC, if and when the time comes.

As long as the representation is fully cross-sectional.

>>All I meant was that we should not be surprised if a communal body's pronouncements are communal.

Even if they are, I am only defending their right to persuade the public through peaceful means. There is no guarantee that those views would be persuasive to the public.

Old Mac
???, United States
Jul 16, 2005 12:00 AM
15
Old Mac is at it again:
-In modern US, someone’s village, religion, language, father’s name and caste do not affect American lives.

Oh myopic Massey Sahib – discrimination need not go by the precise name tags that you mentioned. It comes in various forms. But just like Gandhari failed to see anything wrong in her sons, you fail to see anything wrong anyplace else apart from India.

Of course – in the US, ways and means to progress are much more than in India but only a fool would claim that there is no discrimination based on other things. A recent study shows that if you are sending in your resume to a company then if your name is a standout black name then your chances for being called for an interview fall dramatically compared to someone with a WASP name.

Moreover, in the past, generations of Americans have bootstrapped themselves from poverty to middle class through a good college education. But with the recent steep increase in tuition accompanied by corresponding decrease in aid has made it difficult for people to get that increasingly important four year college degree and as a result more and more Americans who were born in poverty would remain poor.

And of course you conveniently forgot how recently in the Naval Academy – evangelical groups demeaned and threatened non-evangelicals during their training.

Your criticism of Indian society would be much more plausible were you not to include your giddy comparisons with the western society and if you were more even handed in your approach. It seems to me that you only watch Fox News in the US.
Vikas Chowdhry
Madison, USA
Jul 17, 2005 12:00 AM
16
Ols Mac,

The word "appease" does mean what you say, namely "try to pacify the enemy", but in Indian political dialogue its other meaning is more germane, namely "show favoritism". It is defined in the online dictionary as: "cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of".
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jul 17, 2005 12:00 AM
17
Ghulam writes:

>>but in Indian political dialogue its other meaning is more germane, namely "show favoritism". It is defined in the online dictionary as: "cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of".

How's that different from any interest group? like manufacturers wanting favoritism against customers with trade restrictions, IT industry wanting favoritism against other service industries with no taxation or environmental groups wanting favoritism against industry with emissions standards? The whole "appeasement" issue is a sideshow with revealing language like "show them a lesson" and "put them in their place."

Define rights clearly and enforce them rigorously and impartially....if the non-discrimination principle has any meaning...then muslims will be neither receipients of undue benefits nor undue burdens...lot of problems disappear.
Old Mac
???, United States
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY