Case for Kashmiri Pandit Homeland: Lalit k kaul
Case for Kashmiri Pandit Homeland
Lalit K Kaul
The SC of India has repeatedly dismissed the petitions pleading that
the culprits responsible for “genocide" culminating into their forced
exodus in 1991, the process having started in 1986 in independent India, be
brought to justice. In the last hearing in the SC, the bench in its wisdom
asked the petitioners to “first approach the executive". But the then CM
of the erstwhile J&K state, post eruption of insurgency against the Indian
State, fled to London to play golf! The Chief executive who was required to
initiate steps to quell insurgency and restore normalcy in due time, as he was
bound by Oath under Indian Constitution, and concomitantly take steps to ensure
that the Pandits are not forced to leave the Valley under the threats of conversions,
rapes, loot, arson and murders; abdicated his duties under Oath to enjoy life
in London. The SC at that point of time didn't deem it necessary to take suo-moto
notice of the dereliction of duty by the then CM and initiate proceedings to
bring him to justice. And, now after 33 years of Pandit exodus, the SC directs
them to go to executive first!
The KP “Genocide”:
What is Genocide?
Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are
committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic,
racial, or religious group.
What was done to the Pandits in the Valley starting 1986 which
culminated into their wholesale exit from the Valley truly fits into the
definition of genocide with 0% mean square error. “In whole or in part"
debunks the theories propounded by apologists of Kashmiriat that it was not
genocide since some had stayed back!
“national" – Indian nationals that Pandits in the Valley were and
infinitesimal (2000 – 4000) which remained. Since last two years even the
residue is being targeted.
“Ethnic, racial" – aboriginals of Kashmir
“Religious group"- Sanatan Dharm
This ethnic group which follows Sanatan Dharm and revere Hindustan (India)
not only as their Karm Bhoomi but also their pious land (Punya Bhoomi) and
Motherland (Matr Bhoomi), and were upholding its Value system and cultural
heritage in the Valley were hounded out of their land “Satisar” by such forces
whose aim was to establish Nizam e Mustafa; by reducing Pandit community size
to a negligible number their aim was achieved. If this is not Genocide, pray,
what else is it!
Why there is no acceptance of Pandit Genocide? Because there was a
national level political consensus about realizing Nizam e Mustafa, even while
it was initiated by Kashmiri Muslims’ leadership – both “mainstream” and
“separatists"- joined by their religious leaders/heads; politics mixed
with religion is such an explosive mix that barely anyone survives its
onslaught and who knows it better than the Muslim nations across the Globe.
Because there was/is a national consensus on the plight of Kashmiri
Pandits, the SC never entertained any petition filed by the Pandits to get
justice. This is not a theory that sprung up because of “being wiser by
hindsight", I have been saying it since long before first petition was
filed in the SC.
Acceptance or rejection of Pandit genocide does not in anyway either
enhance or diminish the imperative of granting Homeland to Kashmiri Pandits to
the North and East of river Jhelum as per the Resolution passed by the
community in Marg Darshan'91 held at Abhinav theater in Jammu city. The demand is
relevant, logical and very appropriate, if one looks at the history of
independent India.
Reorganization of States:
For the first time, the States Reorganization Commission was
constituted in 1953 to go into this problem and to recommend the principles and
broad guidelines on which the States can be reorganized. The Commission
submitted its report in September, 1955. Language was chosen as the basis for
the reorganization of States in India in the year 1956. It all was initiated
due to the leadership of Sri Potti Sriramulu who went on a hunger strike to
demand separation of Telugu speaking areas from the State of Madras in 1953.
The logical argument was language defines a people, their culture, value system
and civilization. The Telugus had no reason to accept hegemony of Tamils and to
get out of its yoke, Potti Sriramulu ended up being a martyr in the cause.
Creation of Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand:
These new states were formed on the 1st, 9th,
and 15th of November 2000, respectively. It changed the count of
Indian states from 25 to 28. Chhattisgarh reconstituted Madhya Pradesh; Uttaranchal
reformed Uttar Pradesh; and Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar. The
basis for creation of these states was socio-political and not linguistic.
Chhattisgarh is famous for preserving tribal culture; the population
of the tribe strictly adheres to traditional norms of living – be It their
lifestyle, dance, music, culture, and food habits etc.
Jharkhand has 26.2% tribal population; OBC: 46.0%; SC: 12.08%.
Chhattisgarh has 30.62% tribal population; OBC: 47.0%; SC: 12.82%. Uttaranchal
has 2.89% tribal population; OBC: 23.0%; SC: 18.76%. and General: 55%
From the population data one can discern why reasons were
socio-political. Uttaranchal formation was due to agitation of upper castes
against barbaric rule of Mulayam Singh Yadav, the ex-CM of erstwhile state of
UP. The creation of these states fed to the political aspirations of majority
group and afforded them the chance to get hold of political power. The creation
of these states has had very positive effect on the region in terms of GDP
growth and general improvements in the living standards of the people in the
region.
Creation of Telangana:
The erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh had three distinct regions
namely, Andhra, Telangana and Rayalseema. The agitation for creation of a
separate state of Telangana has a long history; the demand had arisen due to “neglect
of Telangana region" by Andhra rulers. The people of Telangana struggled
hard enough to come out of the Andhra yoke and the new State has performed well
in terms of overall development and growth. It was due to lack of opportunities
due to lack of development that a section of Telugu speaking people opted to
separate from their other Telugu speaking brethren.
Creation of Pakistan:
Muslim leadership, both political and religious, in Indian Subcontinent
raised the demand for “pious" land for “Momeen” since they couldn't be
ruled by “Kafirs” and succeeded in trifurcating the Indian Subcontinent. Those
who led such movement never migrated to their “pious" land and remained in
“Kafir" land only to pursue further breaking up of India. The anti-CAA protests
undoubtedly brought out their anti India character as did their plan of Ghazwa
2047. However, the historical fact remains that Muslims asked for a separate
sovereign Nation State as they couldn't countenance a scenario of being ruled
over by Hindus.
The Homeland UT for Kashmiri Pandits: The Precedences in Support of
The Qs are: if Muslims didn't want to stay in “Hindu Majority” sovereign
Nation State, why would Pandits like to stay in “Muslim Majority" Kashmir
Valley from which they were excavated like minerals are from Earth? If Muslims’
demand to trifurcate Indian Subcontinent was acceded to, why Kashmiri Pandits’
demand of a Homeland can't be accepted?
If people of Telangana region were allowed to have a separate state
on the grounds of deprivation of opportunities and resources, etc. to them; why
Kashmiri Pandits can't be granted Homeland as deprivation of opportunities to
them – be it in admissions to vocational institutions or employment avenues or
career growth in government jobs or to have their elected representatives in State
Assembly, etc.- have been unparalleled in comparison to any other community in other
states of India. For example, implementing land to the tiller without
compensating its rightful owners is not only an illegal, irrational and
communal act, but also unheard of; but the Pandits were subject to that
economic hardship and humiliation.
If for socio-political
reasons the states of Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh were created, why
Homeland for Kashmiri Pandits can't be carved out of Kashmir Valley due to the same
reason? That the relationship between Pandits and Muslims on a social plane
were too brittle to stand test of time, was proved beyond doubt by enforced
exodus on Pandits by Muslims; politically, the Pandits were always isolated and
immaterial because they were never represented in J&K Assembly by their
elected Pandit representatives as there were no reserved constituencies as
were/ are to be found in other states of India.
If on Potti Sriramulu insistence a Telugu speaking state was carved
out of the State of Madras because he didn't want Tamil hegemony over Telugus,
why Homeland can't be conceded to Pandits for their liberation from the
hegemony of Muslims?
If a Muslim majority district can be carved out in Kerala by
Namboodripad government, why Homeland for Pandits can't be carved out of the
Valley wherein only Pandits reside?
No basis for denial:
Politically there is no basis for denial of Homeland to Pandits and
in its defense many precedences have been cited, and its creation is not violative
of the Constitution of India; on the contrary denial to grant Homeland is violative
of the Constitution because it shall rob the Pandits of their Right to Live in
safe and secure environment and follow their culture and religion without any
fear of living in perpetual apprehension when their temples will be dismantled and
Goddesses & Gods abused. That Pandits are not wanted in the Valley is
confirmed by killing of even those who never left their houses despite threat
to their lives. Right to Life; Right to practice one's religion; Right to
preserve cultural heritage, and Freedom to work and educate oneself as per
one's choice governed by competence are all granted by the Constitution of
India and Pandits were always deprived of their fundamental rights in the erstwhile
J&K state. Only Homeland can assure them of such rights and hence the
imperative because Constitution can't be violated.
Comments
Post a Comment