If one were to go by the recommendations of some of the most powerful and influential people in Indian politics, Vivek Agnihotri’s latest movie The Kashmir Files is a “must watch”. Kashmiri Pandits, Human Rights Defenders and journalists who are familiar with ground-realities of the Kashmiri Pandit exodus of 1990 would say otherwise. Therefore, one cannot ignore a report titled India’s Kashmir War published in 1990 which gives details of what actually transpired on the ground during that period.

The report authored by a four-member team of the Committee for Initiative on Kashmir comprising Tapan Bose, Dinesh Mohan, Gautam Navlakha and Sumanto Banerjee takes a close look at the situation prevailing in the Valley at that time, its impact on different communities and the attitude of the administration at that time. The team visited Jammu and Kashmir from March 12 to 16, 1990 and spoke to various stakeholders before coming out with this report that was first released in New Delhi on March 23, 1990.

“The findings of the team reveal that the representatives of the Indian state in Kashmir-both the civil administration and the para-military forces-have failed so far to contain ‘terrorism’, and are instead trying to compensate for that failure by wreaking vengeance on the innocent masses of the valley,” says the report painting a bleak picture at the very outset. It sheds light on the attitude of the administration saying, “The team’s talks with officials (in charge of tackling terrorism) indicated that they suffered from the paranoiac feeling that the entire population of the valley are pro-Pakistani ‘terrorists’. Dictated by such suspicious feelings, operations to maintain law and order have invariably led to the alienation of the common people who are subjected to humiliation, discrimination and firings by the security forces.”

It is no secret that the insurgency and separatist movement in Kashmir was sponsored to a large extent by Pakistan, but that does not mean Kashmiri Muslims wanted to oust their Kashmiri Hindu neighbours in a bid to grab their properties or establish an Islamic state as it the popular narrative peddled by right-wing organisations, trolls and Whatsapp groups. One cannot overlook how the attitude and behaviour of the State and para-military forces, with their relentless targeting of Muslims who form the majority community in Kashmir led to a feeling of alientation and othering, adding further fuel to separatist fires.

After The Kashmir Files was released, many people pointed out how it was VP Singh’s government in power at that time at the Centre and it had BJP support. They also pointed out how it was Jagmohan, a Governor appointed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who was in charge of J&K at the time.

India’s Kashmir War says, “Jagmohan’s first day in office was marked by raids and searches conducted by security forces (with the ostensible objective of flushing out terrorists) in the Habbakadal area of Srinagar from the midnight of January 19 till the morning of January 20. About 400 young people–both Muslims and Hindus-were dragged out from their houses, mercilessly beaten and taken away. It is significant that the local civil authorities of Srinagar were never consulted before the raids were conducted. The CRPF and other para-military forces which carried out the raids were on their own, unaccompanied by the local police. The Divisional Commissioner of Srinagar later told protesting demonstrators that he had no knowledge of the raids and searches.”

On the subject of Jagmohan and perceptions surrounding him at the time, the report further says, “We noted with alarm the first signs of a growing resentment against the Hindus who have migrated, and who, they feel, are being pampered by a biased administration. In fact, Governor Jagmohan is getting identified with Hindu communalist forces, thanks to the widely circulated reports of BJP backing for his reappointment. The contrast between his crackdown on the valley’s masses (predominantly Muslim) with his demonstrative concern for the Hindus by encouraging their migration and providing them with relief, is reinforcing among the common people in the valley a distrust in the administration’s professions of fair play, and a suspicion about their Hindu neighbours – with whom they had been living in harmony all these years. This has ominous implications for Hindu-Muslim relations in the valley, since it can provide a ready handle to the Muslim communal fundamentalist forces who are out to thrive on a permanent division between Hindus and Muslims.”

Giving an example of excesses and mismanagement the report says, “On January 20, when a group of people were proceeding to express solidarity with others who had gathered outside the Divisional Commissioner’s office to protest against the atrocities of the para-military forces, they were tear-gassed. The same night–January 20-curfew was clamped down on the city.”

In yet another example it says, “On the 21^st a 20,000-strong procession including people from the city’s outskirts passed through the streets of Srinagar, defying curfew and protesting against the illegal searches and arrests. When the procession reached Basant Bagh, in the Gow Kadal area, the para-military forces started firing upon them. According to the local police, at least 60 dead bodies were recovered from the spot and taken to the police control room, while unofficial sources claim that more than 200 were killed.”

The report also sheds light on how medical personnel were treated by para military forces that fuelled further alienation. “It is not only peaceful demonstrators who are being attacked by the para-military forces, we found that even doctors, going around in the normal course of their duties, are not spared. During our visit to the Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences on March 14, senior doctors narrated their experience at the hands of the para-military forces. Body searches have become a regular affair. On March 2, as the doctors were coming to the hospital in an ambulance, when they were stopped by the para-military forces who pointed guns at their heads. Although they showed their curfew passes and identity cards, each one of them was frisked. Two women doctors-Dr. Surva Kaul and Dr. Vijayati Kaul-were humiliated to such an extent that they had stopped coming to the hospital to escape humiliating body searches by male police. Within the hospital complex, doctors and attendants are searched every time they move out to collect medical equipment from the stores. Packets of sterilised linen and surgical instruments, among other things, are the main targets of the para-military personnel, who, on suspicion that they contain explosives, prise them open, thus exposing them to contamination,” reveals the report.

It is well known that a section of the separatists was backed by Pakistan and it was they who were primarily responsible for the intimidation and violence inflicted on the Kashmiri Pandit community. But The Kashmir Files movie appears to suggest that it was supported by the entire Kashmir Muslim community, something that is not true at all. The fears amidst the Kashmiri Hindus were first triggered by a spate of killings. “From our interviews in Jammu, we felt that the fear among the Hindus had been generated by the killing of some leading Hindus by the militants in the valley from the end of 1989 till the beginning of this year. Tikalal Tapru, a senior advocate and vice-president of the BJP was killed on October 9, last year, to be followed by the murder of a retired sessions judge, N.K. Ganju, in November. On December 19, Premnath Butt, a journalist and advocate from Anantnag fell a victim to militants’ bullets. Anil Bhan of the UCO Bank was killed on February 16, and a week later Ashoke Kazi was murdered,” says the report.

In fact, the team visited Srinagar and spoke to some Kashmiri Hindus. “We met the Hindus separately, and they all told us that they had not faced any threats from the militants, and were on the best of terms with their Muslim neighbours,” says the report. It gave the example of Bansilal Razdar, a 35-year-old hotel employee had been living in the locality for the last 27 years. He said he had not experienced any communal tensions during this period. Makhanlal Raina, chief technologist in a hospital – a Hindu in his mid-fifties- told the authors of the report that he never felt the need to leave the city and join his son and daughter who lived outside Kashmir, since neither he nor his wife had ever faced any problem with their Muslim neighbours. Raina told them, “It is the Muslims who feel scared, the way they are being killed by the CRPF. If anyone has to run away from the valley, it will be Muslims.”

Shedding more light on the relationship between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir, the report said, “Muslim neighbours of Hindu residents in Pratap Park told us that although there had never been a single instance of communal tensions in their neighbourhood, government vehicles were sent there to evacuate Hindu residents along with their belongings. In spite of pleadings by the Muslim neighbours, the Hindus left their homes. In some places, these Hindus left their keys with their Muslim neighbours who are looking after their houses.”

The repot also does not mince words about how the “Independence movement” was virtually taken over by pro-Pakistan groups and how the overtly Islamic slogans played a part in alienating Kashmiri Hindus to the point that they began to fear for their safety as many were killed in attacks by militants.

“A rational understanding about targets of militant attacks (whether the Hindus are being killed because they are ‘informers’ like their Muslim counterparts) is not possible among a minority community which has to live in a highly surcharged environment where the movement for Kashmir’s ‘independence’ is dominated by Islamic slogans. The rise of extremist pro-Pakistan groups like the Allah Tigers (as distinct from the pro-Independence JKLF) has reinforced the threat perceived by the Hindus in the valley,” says the report.

It further says, “Despite the professed desires of the common Muslims of the valley to keep the Pandits in their ranks in their struggle for ‘independence’, the overtly religious character of the movement marked by Islamic slogans like “Allah-ho-Akbar” hardly provides any space for the non-Muslim resident of the valley, even if the latter agreed to share their urge for ‘independence’.”

The report also says how mosques played a role in the increased Islamisation of the separatist movement. “We must also understand the increasing role of the mosque in the politics of the valley, where the pro-independence movement is getting identified with Islam. Normal political channels for redressal of grievances have eroded due to a long and bitter process of politicking indulged in by unscrupulous politicians both in Kashmir and the Centre. Democratic platforms for a political discourse on the future of Kashmir have suffered the same fate. The vacuum has now been filled up by the mosque, which has become the central rallying point for the disgruntled masses,” says the report.

The report went on to make a series of recommendations saying, “We are convinced that unless gross violation of the rights of people by the state machinery is condemned, we cannot even begin to expect the population to consider any dialogue. In denying the people of Kashmir their fundamental rights we are actually demeaning and denying ourselves the same. We therefore demand:

–              immediate recall of Governor Jagmohan, who in the perception of the common people of Kashmir has become a symbol of state repression;

–              withdraw of all para-military forces;

–              discontinuances of ‘curfew raj’;

–              exemplary punishment to those security forces personnel and Army jawans who are found guilty of killing innocent people, allegedly raping women and destruction of public and private property.”

The entire report may be read here: 

*SabrangIndia is grateful to the Committee for Initiative on Kashmir, but most especially Peggy Mohan who brought to our editorial attention the importance and significance of analysing and re-publishing this document right now. When a systematic and cynical manipulation of figures and history is being used to whip up a frenzy against Indian Muslims.

Related:

A Kashmiri Pandit fact-checks The Kashmir Files

The Kashmir Files: Calls for Muslim genocide ring out in cinema halls, hate brews outside

The Kashmir Files: Calls for genocide and hate marches by right-wing extremists and trolls

Kashmiri Pandits refute communal claims made in The Kashmir Files

Beyond Kashmir Files, a call for reason

The Kashmir Files backed by PM, FM, CMs; continues to fuel divide

Hate floods in the wake of ‘The Kashmir Files’

The post State failed to contain terrorism, wreaked vengeance on innocent masses: India’s Kashmir War appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That memory confronts me with a disturbing question. Am I morally liable for the ill treatment and death of Rohingya refugees who were sent back by our country’s government to Myanmar, where they’re likely to be tortured, raped and killed? I’m concerned because it’s not just a verdict of the ruling Hindu right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), guided by their ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak (RSS), which is guiding this. Today the forcible deportation of the Rohingya refugee has been endorsed by the highest judiciary, the Supreme Court of India. As a citizen, I feel that I’m as guilty as those that took this inhuman decision.

Refugees fleeing their country are a transparent sign of continuous human rights violations. Currently there are approximately 7 million refugees across the planet. Amongst them, the Rohingya community from Myanmar is one among the foremost endangered. Over 1,000,000 Rohingya people have been forced to flee Myanmar. People who remain in Myanmar are internally displaced persons, without citizenship and protection. They been called by the international community as the world’s “most persecuted people”.

The Supreme Court’s Order on “Rohingyas” is flawed.

Here are the reasons:

1. Rohingyas aren’t citizens of Myanmar. They aren’t listed as a “national race” in Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Act, and are therefore stateless folk that no state has committed to providing permanent protection for.

2. The Supreme Court disallowed the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Special Rapporteur, Senior Counsel C.U. Singh  from “making submissions”. The Court said there have been “serious objections” raised to his intervention. The Court did not disclose who raised these objections and whether these objections were justifiable or not.  Apparently, the court felt it necessary to guard the identity of the objectors.

3. The Supreme Court also ruled out the applicability of the principle of non-refoulement*. This principle is a norm that the Indian judiciary has embraced since the birth of independent India. In several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts have upheld that forcible return of refugees to a rustic where they’re susceptible to be subjected to persecution can clearly be read into Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. (The Leaflet, April 12, 2021)

In the judgment on the case of Gramophone Company of India Ltd vs Birendra Bahadur Pandey & Others, 1984 SCR (2) 664, the Supreme Court held that rules of the law of nations, i.e., international law, could even be accommodated into municipal law, even without express legislative sanction, provided they do not run into conflict with Acts of Parliament.
In 1997 in its judgment in Vishaka & Others vs State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, the Supreme Court stated: “The international conventions and norms are to be read into [fundamental rights guaranteed within the Constitution of India] within the absence of enacted domestic law occupying the fields, when there’s no inconsistency between them. (SUPREME COURT 3011:1997 AIR SCW 3043 , https://www.aironline.in/legal-judgements/1997+(7)+JT+384)

It is now an accepted rule of judicial construction that regard must be had of international conventions and norms for construing domestic law when there’s no inconsistency between them and there is a void within the domestic law.” (The Oxford Handbook of law of countries in Asia and thus the Pacific, edited by Simon Chesterman, Hisashi Owada, Ben Saul; B. S.Chimni, Pp 586;Oxford 2020)
 

Double-speak on non-refoulement

The chief justice of India (CJI) and his two brother judges surmised that since India wasn’t a signatory to the Refugee Convention, it had been not clear whether Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution might be pressed into service. Article 51(c) requires the govt. to foster respect for law of nations and treaty obligations within the dealings of organised peoples with one another. Strangely, the Supreme Court did not deem it fit to ask the government whether it had been obliged to respect the principle of non-refoulement under the other international treaty or convention which it has signed or ratified. Compounding its double speak, the government did not mention that India may be a member of the chief Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme (Excom). Membership of the Excom is indicative of the country striving for greater commitments to refugee jurisprudence.

The UNHCR is of the view that the principle of non-refoulment constitutes an integral part of the customary law of nations and thus is binding on all states, regardless of their accession to the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Article 38(1) (b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), illustrates that, international custom is general practice accepted as law and must be considered one among the sources of law of countries by the ICJ. The ICJ within the landmark Northern Sea ocean bottom Cases, held that, the provisions of a treaty in conjunction with the opinion juris, end within the creation of a binding custom governing all states, not limited to parties to the first treaty. (Statelessness in India – Seeking Solutions in International Law; http://cilj.co.uk › 2020/02/11)

Let me also point out that India had voted affirmatively to adopt the UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum in 1967. Article 3 of ‘Declaration on Territorial Asylum’ states that any person who fulfils the conditions of article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonialism, “shall [not be] be subjected to measures such as rejection at the frontier or, if he has already entered the territory in which he seeks asylum, expulsion or compulsory return to any State where he may be subjected to persecution.” (Declaration on Territorial Asylum. refworld.org/docid/3b00f05a2c.html)

Also, as a member of Asian African Legal Consultative Organisation, in 1966, India upheld the principle of non- refoulement as envisaged in the Bangkok Principles on ‘Status and Treatment of Refugees’ 1966, by acknowledging the principle of non- refoulement as jus cogens. From the foregoing, it is clear that Government of India, knowingly violated its obligations under Article 51 (c) of Indian Constitution. (Constitition of India, Part IV, Article 51; Page 24, https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/Part4.pdf ) & (Statelessness in India – Seeking Solutions in International Law; http://cilj.co.uk › 2020/02/11)

Ignoring the International Court of Justice

It appears that the Honourable judges of our Supreme Court not only forgot its past tradition, but also ignored the fact that in November 2019, The Gambia had lodged an application with the ICJ against Myanmar, initiating the case on the basis of the erga omnes character of the obligations enshrined in the Genocide Convention. In 2020 the ICJ held that Myanmar must take steps to prevent further genocidal acts by its own forces or by groups or forces acting within its territory over which it has any “control, direction, or influence.” It also held that Myanmar must take steps to preserve any evidence of wrongdoing under the Genocide Convention. The Court required Myanmar to submit a report to the ICJ within four months on the steps it is taking to comply with these orders. (The Gambia vs. Myanmar Summary: https://new.tat.ac.in/quantum-computing-jybpfz/61b2b2-the-gambia-v-myanmar-summary Jan. 23, 2020).

Before issuing the provisional order, the ICJ had determined that it had “prima facie jurisdiction,” meaning that The Gambia had presented sufficient materials to satisfy the Court that it called for application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/application-convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide-gambia-v-myanmar). The decision was widely covered in global media.

BJP government and Myanmar’s military junta

Myanmar is a refugee making country. It has been making hundreds of thousands of its own people stateless and forcing them to seek asylum since the eighties. It is a classic example of a repressive and a rogue state. The military rulers of Myanmar have denied fundamental human rights and civil liberties and made mockery of its quasi-democratic interregnum 2011-2021. They have scrapped the rule of law, assassinated opponents, taken thousands as political prisoners and used lethal force against civilian protesters. Collective punitive action has been imposed on families and communities, particularly against the Muslim minority Rohingyas and other recognised ‘national minorities’, the Chins, Karens, Shans and Kachins.

Myanmar’s military-owned conglomerates control businesses and investments in sectors ranging from beer, tobacco and consumables to mines, mills, tourism, property development and telecommunications. From SIM cards to beer, from skydiving to jade mining, there are few areas of Myanmar’s economy that escape the long arm of the country’s military, the Tatmadaw. The United Nations Fact-Finding Mission in a 2019 report laid bare the extent of the armed forces’ involvement in the economy – exposing the Myanmar Economic Holding Ltd (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC)-owned businesses as well as 27 close affiliates to the military. The Tatmadaw’s web of commercial interests enabled it to “insulate itself from accountability and oversight,” the UN Report said. “Through controlling its own business empire, the Tatmadaw is able to evade the accountability and oversight that normally arise from civilian oversight of military budgets.” (Business interests of Myanmar’s rogue army…; https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/business-interests-of-myanmars-rogue-army-are-why-it-is-loath-to-allow-civilian-control-and-democracy)

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in February condemned Myanmar’s coup d’état and expressed support for the country’s “democratic transition.” India, the world’s largest democracy and Myanmar’s neighbour, was nuanced in its response, presumably to protect its own security interests in the North-East and its economic interests in Myanmar.

Indian government has been recalcitrant in criticizing the military. Its position has been that the political situation in Myanmar “needs to return to normalcy.” In the UNSC, India has leaned towards China, Russia and Vietnam which have blocked any call for strong action on Myanmar as proposed by other members. On March 10, the UNSC expressed its “deep concern” regarding events in Myanmar and condemned the violence against peaceful protestors. It asked the military to “exercise utmost restraint”. It failed to mention even the word ‘coup’. Myanmar’s pro-democracy protesters in the streets have begged for weeks for the international community to take more tangible action against the junta.

India sealed its border with Myanmar as the military junta’s brutal crackdown on pro-democracy activists intensified with more than 700 protestors killed so far. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) instructed the Assam Rifles, the paramilitary force which guards the India-Myanmar border, bureaucrats and the police force of four north-eastern states – Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, and Mizoram – to “check illegal influx from Myanmar into India.”

The Home Ministry sent two letters to the governments of the border states of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Mizoram directing them to identify and deport people fleeing across the border from Myanmar. The instructions were precise. State governments have no powers to grant “refugee” status to any foreigner” as India is not a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.

New Delhi’s efforts to block the entry of refugees from Myanmar has not met with success in the North-East. The Manipur government had issued a letter on March 26 directing officials not to set up any camps for Myanmar nationals crossing the border into India and to “politely turn away” those seeking refuge. That letter was promptly withdrawn. Local media reported that the Manipur government was supporting those seeking refuge.

According to media reports, nearly 2,000 persons from Myanmar have entered the border state of Mizoram. They include members of Myanmar’s civilian police force. The Chief Minister of Mizoram, Zoramthanga and Mizo civil society actors have decided to defy New Delhi’s orders and give shelter, medical aid, food and other relief materials to the refugees. Members of The Zo Reunification Organisation (ZORO), have burnt copies of the MHA order in Mizoram capital Aizawl on Monday to protest the Centre’s discriminatory order. The Global Naga Forum has written to the Chief Minister of Nagaland and Manipur to extend protection to refugees escaping Myanmar junta’s violence. Manipur’s Civil Society Coalition for Human Rights in Manipur (CSCHR) in a recent statement has said that India has a moral, constitutional and human rights obligation to support the refugees from Myanmar. According to a report by NDTV, Myanmar’s (defected) Ambassador to the United Nations has appealed to the Indian government and various state government to provide shelter to those fleeing Myanmar.

What the BJP regime needs to understand is that deporting asylum seekers to Myanmar will undoubtedly be appreciated by the Tatmadaw. But it will come at a huge cost, not least to India’s battered image of being a democracy. Its more lasting consequence would be to damage relations with the protesting multitude of people in Myanmar. Already, India has alienated the common people of the border states of the NE (north east) making them feel that mainstream Indian does not care for its persecuted cross border ethnic kin across the borders, drawn by colonial powers. Peoples’ support is essential for India’s ambitious “Act East” policy. That support is being alienated. 

* the practice of not forcing refugees or asylum seekers to return to a country in which they are liable to be subjected to persecution.

The post India and the Myanmar crisis: Death of Justice, Death of Morality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That the Modi Government will bring in a law altering the definition of resident or domicile in Jammu and Kashmir was a foregone conclusion. During his election campaign in 2019, Modi had promised to abrogate Article 370. The RSS could not live with the fact that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is a Muslim majority region and that its Muslim majority status was protected by law, i.e. Article 370 and its section 35 A. The fact that it waited nearly eight months to make this change is surprising. Presumably, the country wide agitation caused by the enactment of CAA and the proposed NPR and NRC had made them pause. Now that the country is in a lockdown, thanks to the dreaded Corona Virus, people are in quarantine and police are out there to ensure no one can come out to protest, it has brought in the new law.

As Prof. Siddiq Wahid, former Vice Chancellor of J&K Islamic University said, “I think it illustrates clearly that some will not stop from politicking during coronavirus.”  All political parties of Jammu and Kashmir have opposed the new domicile law. Civil society groups have condemned it. Retired Air vice Marshal Kapil Kak, who has challenged the abrogation of Article 370 in the Supreme Court, told Al Jazeera ” (it is) a permanent resident by stealth”. “It should worry the Kashmiris … The effect of this notification would be felt in [the] Jammu [region] because there are not many people who have come into Kashmir in the last 15 years.”

Even the BJP blessed, J&K Apni Party president Altaf Bukhari, said, “This order in its entirety is a casual attempt, cosmetic in nature, to hoodwink the people of J&K who genuinely believed that post October 31, 2019, their rights and privileges in the matter of employment and other rights would remain as it had been.” And speaking about double speak and lies, on March 15, 2020, when a group of Kashmiri political leaders had met Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah in Delhi, on the issue of domicile in statehood, both of them had issued statements later, reiterating their commitment to protecting rights of J&K people.

According to the new law all those who have lived in J&K for 15 years, as well as those who studied there for at least seven years and appeared for Class 10 and 12 exams from an educational institution in Jammu and Kashmir will be recognised as a domicile. The new law has expanded the definition to include “children of those central government officials, all India services officers, officials of Public Sector Undertakings children of Central government employees, PSUs and autonomous body of central government, public sector banks, officials of statutory bodies, officials of central universities and recognised research institutes of central government who have served in Jammu and Kashmir for a total period of ten years or children of parents who fulfil any of the conditions…” Under this law, now the “Tehsildar” has been given the power to issue domicile certificate. Earlier it was the Deputy Commissioner who was empowered.

However, Jammu and Kashmir is not the only state where special laws meant for preserving the identity are in force. Nagaland has Article 371A and outsiders need a special permit to enter the state. Similarly, the neighbouring state of Himachal Pradesh has a domicile law which prevents outsiders to purchase land there. Himachal Pradesh is ruled by the BJP and Nagaland’s government is supported by BJP. Yet, when it comes to implement the one India slogan in letter and spirit, states like Nagaland and Himachal are forgotten.

Until now, state government jobs in Jammu and Kashmir were reserved for the permanent residents of the state as defined in section 6 of the J&K Constitution. The J&K Constitution has been repealed. Through the new law, the Centre has repealed the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Special Provisions Act. Initially only Class IV category of government jobs, such as junior assistants and peons, have been reserved for residents, or domiciles, of J&K with pay up to Rupees. 25,500 per month. All other category of government jobs, including judicial services were opened to people from all over the country. 

However, after the law was criticised by almost all J&K political parties and social organisations, including supporters of BJP in Jammu and the newly formed Kashmiri political party which was blessed by the BJP, the government on April 3, decided modify the order. Now all jobs under the J K Administration are reserved only for those certified as domiciled in Jammu and Kashmir. The press conference addressed by the IGP of Kashmir, threatening to, “arrest those instigating people against the new domicile law” shows that  despite the lockdown, people of J&K were giving expression to their anger and opposition to this sneaky mid-night move of the Central government to take away the protection of “State Subjects”. According to the IGP of J&K, posting messages opposing the new domicile law is misuse of social media and punishable under the orders of the government. Clearly, in Jammu and Kashmir, the people do not have any rights, and criticism of the government is illegal. Mr. Bukhari, the leader of J&K Apni Party changed his tune after the Central government modified the rules and extended reservation to all categories and classes of jobs.

The whole purpose of revoking Article 370 was to settle outsiders here and change the demography of the state. Now this law has been created to provide the modalities to settle many categories of Indians in Jammu and Kashmir. As Siddiq Wahid said, “it is an attempt to change the demographics, not only change but flood it. It will lead to demographic flooding.” The abrogation of Article 370 and 35 A in August 2019 and the changing of the domicile law is the other side of the strikes across the border after Pulwama massacre. It is a direct assault on the people of Jammu and Kashmir, for what the BJP calls internal rectification required for “full and complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India.”

The Background

The State Subject Law, which was enacted in 1927 by Maharaja Hari Singh is an integral part of Kashmiri people’s struggle for equality and democratic rights. The State Subject movement had a distinctive feature of its own as it amalgamated both the regions on this issue i.e. Jammu under Dogra Sadr Sabha and Kashmir under Pandits. One of the annual conference of Dogra Sadr Sabha held at Srinagar on October 1926 in which Pandit Jia Lal Kilam moved a resolution, demanding that only those persons whose ancestors had been residing in the state since the time of Maharaja Gulab Singh should be considered as the hereditary State Subjects and be given preferential treatment in the state-services to such persons. Finally, the issue came up again towards the beginning of the Maharaja Hari Singh’s regime. The Maharaja appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Major General Janak Singh, the then revenue minister, to define the term. The commission comprised officials and non-officials including the natives and the outsiders. The constitution of the State-Subject Definition Committee was broad based and the representation was given to all the sections of the population of the state including the Kashmiris, the Dogra and the Punjabis. The definition of state subject and law was framed in 1927 under the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh. It was the Kashmiri Pandits who had played an important role in getting the legislation framed as the issue was largely irrelevant to Kashmiri Muslims, who were shut out of the employment pool almost entirely, due to their comparative socio-economic disadvantage and the communal nature of Dogra rule.  

The worst feature of the Dogra rule was its communal outlook. It discriminated against the Muslims on the basis of their religion and also interfered in their religious affairs. The Dogra State was actually a Hindu State and its rulers tried their best to broaden its Hindu nature. As a result Kashmiri Pandits, the Hindu community of the valley, were associated with it and the Muslims were marginalised. In the field of education, Kashmir was lagging behind in the whole subcontinent. Though modern education began in Kashmir in 1880, but it was the Kashmiri Pandits who took advantage of it. The Pandits were advanced in education because of the facilities provided by the Government which were not provided to the Muslims. As the Muslims were mostly uneducated, they were not employed in the state’s public service.

With the turn of the century the Muslims became conscious and started thinking about their community. They sent petitions and requested the Government to establish the schools in their areas, but were turned down.  Muslims outside the state also highlighted the grievances of Kashmiri Muslims and supported them through their organisations, press and other means. Under pressure of growing public opinion, Maharaja Pratap Singh, in 1916 invited Sir Henry Sharp, the Educational Commissioner, and Government of India, to examine the educational system in Kashmir and to advise the future policy, and also to recommend the development of education of the Muslims. Mr. Sharp recommended the expansion of the primary schools, scholarships for the Muslims. Though Pratap Singh accepted these recommendations, his Hindu officials ignored these recommendations as they did not want Muslims to be appointed in the State services, which they considered their monopoly.

In 1920, the silk factory workers struck work to call for a pay raise. Four years later, they launched an even bigger agitation due to poor working conditions. The Reading Room Party from Srinagar agitated for improved education facilities and more administrative work opportunities for Muslims. In July 1931 Kashmir’s Muslims launched their first massive protest against the unfair Hindu administration of Dogra regime. On July 13, 1931, several Kashmiri Muslims protesting the arrest of Abdul Qayyum, had taken out a procession demanding his release. To counter the spreading rebellion of Kashmiri masses, Maharaja Hari Singh passed an Ordinance which empowered troops to enforce brutal laws. Through this draconian Ordinance the city was handed over to the military and civil administration was suspended. The Rajput soldiers of Maharaja took full benefit of the Ordinance Raj over the days. The Ordinance gave troops a free hand. Soldiers entered homes, looted and raped the women. Several cases of rape were reported to Middleton, Enquiry Officer of Riots Enquiry Commission. Shopkeepers were asked to open their shops, and when they did it, they were arrested. In their absence the shops were plundered. People were forced to salute the military officers in the streets of the town.

On October 5, 1931, during the celebration of his birthday, Hari Singh asserted “I believe I am voicing the general feeling when I say that we are deeply grateful to the troops for their devotion to duty and self-restraint they have shown in maintaining the public peace and authority of law during last three months.” (The same praise is often heaped on Indian security forces, by India’s mainstream political parties, despite their horrible human rights record.) The protests gained momentum after the killings and Maharajah Hari Singh was forced to institute the Glancy Commission to inquire into the Muslim complaints.

The Glancy Commission found that in 1930 in the state’s bureaucracy, Hindus and Sikhs held 78 per cent of gazetted appointments compared to the Muslims who held only 22 percent of the jobs. The Glancy Commission submitted its report to the Maharaja on March 22, 1932.The Hindus felt that its recommendations were not in the interests their community. They started a movement against the recommendations of the Glancy Commission called “Bread Movement” asking the Maharaja not to employ Muslims in large numbers in the government. The divide between the Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmir Muslims can be traced back to this movement of Kashmir Pandits, when instead of supporting their Muslim brethren, they opposed them. This was the time, when Kashmir witnessed its first communal violence and communal killing

In 1930, the Kashmiri Muslim had only 22 percent of the gazetted jobs. Let us look at the community wise distribution of jobs in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1990s, sixty years after Glancy Commission’s recommendations. As on July 1, 1987, in J & K, nearly 57 percent of Gazetted jobs were held by Hindus and Sikhs, while the Kashmir Muslims held 41.71 percent of these positions. About one third of all persons employed in state owned corporations, undertakings, autonomous bodies and banks in J&K were Hindus. When we look at the community wise breakdown of employment in Central government establishments in Jammu and Kashmir in 1989, we see that in the “Officer”, Hindu employees constituted about 83 percent while only about 6 percent of the “Officers” were Muslim. Considering that Hindus and Sikhs together constituted about 36.5 percent and the Muslims comprised of 64.15 of the population of J & K (1990/91), it clearly shows that the Kashmiri Muslim never enjoyed a monopoly over jobs in the government of J & K, even under the rule of the Abdullahs. (India’s Kashmir War, Tapan Bose, Dinesh Mohan, Gautam Navlakha Sumanta Bannerjee; Economic & Political Weekly, March 31, 1990)

A document, which according to a government official, provided the rationale for the removal of special status of Jammu and Kashmir was published by the Hindu on August 5, 2019. The document clearly spells out BJP’s reasons and objective for removal of Article 370 and 35 A. It says, “There exists an unnecessary chasm between citizens of Kashmir and the rest of India.” The document also claims that, “… (in) Kashmir the positive discrimination has tended to be insidious. … If Indians (non-Kashmiris) cannot invest in land or property, how can manufacturing firms or multinational corporations? The moves might have provided jobs to the young people of Kashmir. It also stopped public colleges such as medical colleges from adequately fulfilling vacancies. Professors cannot be hired from outside the State except in extremely low quotas. These and many more ensure that unemployment increases, which make the advent of radicalization, more viable. Hence, Article 370, the pernicious basis of Article 35-A must go.”

Tail Piece:

The Afghan rule in Kashmir which continued for 67 years was probably the worst ever seen by the inhabitants of the valley. The stories of brutalities of the Afghan rulers make people shudder even now. Kakkar Khan, a man with flowing white beard was thought to be pious man. He was appointed Governor of Kashmir. As Kakkar Khan’s entourage reached Baramulla a funeral was passing by. The governor asked them to stop. Kashmiris were happy thinking the pious man is going to offer fateh to the departed soul. On the contrary he asked them to open the coffin and bit the ear of the deceased and shouted, “Tell the dead in the next world that Kakkar Khan has arrived in Kashmir!”

The post Changing the Domicile in Jammu and Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.