A statement sometime ago by a Pakistani foreign ministry spokesperson pleading for Kashmir's independence, though ignored in India, was widely commented upon in the Kashmir Valley as a climb-down from a traditional position. It appears to respond to the slogan of "we want azadi" often raised in popular demonstrations. Azadi is Urdu for independence and freedom, concepts that sometime contradict each other. The question is: do people need independence if it denies them freedom? This has never been debated in Kashmir.
When Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular leader Kashmir ever produced, assumed power after the state's accession to India and the end of Dogra rule, he hailed azadi after four centuries of slavery, Kashmir having been ruled by Mughal, Afghan, Sikh and Dogra rulers. People celebrated as well. However, neither the ruler nor the people bothered about freedom. No dissenting voice was tolerated. The system was so regimented that office-bearers of the ruling National Conference were appointed as government officers and vice versa. The Sheikh dismissed my suggestion that government officers should not hold party office by citing how successfully the system worked in the Soviet Union.
At the time I asked Nehru, then India's prime minister, "Can such a state remain a part of a democratic India?" He said India's Kashmir policy revolved around Abdullah's personality: "We cannot afford to oppose him."
http://newageislam.com/kashmir--back-to-the-future--/islam-and-politics/d/2045
No comments:
Post a Comment