Let me in the onset say sorry for stretching the debate on SMA as some portion in this write-up might be felt unpalatable by some people. Although, the real intent is sincere and in no way I wish to show any contempt for anyone.
A friend of mine named A. R. Mir Sahib wanted me to read the Column of a noted Columnist published in a local Daily on 19th ultimo. So I managed and went through it. The said Columnist named Mr. Haq styles his text so properly that it attracts attention and is easy to read. His Opinion pieces are deemed interesting. In the Column of aforesaid issue, he appears having turned his ‘rage’ on B. R. Singh Sahib implying the accusations against Mr. Singh of defending SMA for his “political misadventures” or inaccuracies.
Haq’s words can’t be termed just accumulation of words or rhetoric, but these carry a weight with them. His evaluation may not be perfectly reasonable but sounds convincing. One thing that seems Haq don’t want to think of is, there is no saint in our political history without a past and sinners are not without future.
Jenab B. R. Sing Sahib’s pieces titled “In Defence Of Shiekh”, might have made some people’s cup of joy overflow as Mr. Singh’s ‘historical interpretations’ do not only absolve SMA of all the alleged charges but he appears lavishing praises on SMA. It has been for long a debatable issue whether SMA committed a historical blunder, and if so, was that intentional or inadvertent? Was it SMA who played a pivotal role in acceding to India or Maharaja Hari Singh was the force in executing the instrument of accession and decided the political future of J&K State? Or were the circumstances of that time responsible for the situation which manifested in the present uprising? Roles of people in accession to the Dominion of India is yet to be established? Some are categoric about SMA being the primary cause in accession, while some deny.
History is never true. This is my belief. History is actually the interpretations of events. Interpretations spring out of the brain. Every brain necessarily remains attached to some concept or belief. So beliefs and concepts have a direct impact on the interpretations of events. That is why an uprising in one country is terrorism while the history of other country judges it a freedom struggle. Someone is called terrorist in one country, while deemed a freedom fighter in another history. Mr. Singh accepts in his write-up that “I am neither a relation nor a Kashmiri”, so in other words confesses that his source of knowledge about Kashmir is the historical interpretations which would have come to his study. And I cannot restrain myself from observing that whatever the history came to his study is the perspective of a particular historian. Even if he claims his point of view is the outcome of his own investigation and analysis, that too becomes the viewpoint of a person, not a universal truth. Sir, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. My personal observation is that most of the decisions manifest SMA an unfortunate politician whom power made the pessimist and intelligence misled him, while as a leader will guided him and made him an optimist. In the first case, he seems a confused politician and in the second case a man of wisdom. Yes, somersaults of our leaders from time to time lit such a spark of suspicion in the minds of people that almost full lot of politicians is not thought trustworthy. Flexibility is different than somersaults. Rigidity is not welcome and appreciable in politics. Rigid has always gone down in history as puerility personified. But flexibility too does not mean compromising the morale; that is somersault.
Now as for the question of democracy is concerned, it was not trampled by SMA only who facilitated his win in 1952 without election as all his MLAs won unopposed but all the politicians who attained power in this part of land disregarded the opinions of people. Once I had an opportunity to interview the late Chief Minister of J&K Syed Mir Qasim. Iqbal Fahim was with me. We asked him, do you believe Kashmiris ever enjoyed democracy? He said, no. We asked him, who is responsible? “All of us”, he replied.
Anyway, whenever we try to fix responsibilities about the accession to India, we discover it a trick of question like an onion multilayered! So far I have gathered, Kashmir issue is no more difficult to solve provided both India and Pakistan succeed to wriggle out from the ‘inferiority complex’. It is not Kashmir only, all other issues also have become prestige points between these two countries than being issues. See the issue of Siachen; Stephen Cohen once described it as a fight of two balds over a comb.
I think it is not now the time to discuss the dead issues and attempt to establish the political legends but to identify the root cause of the problems and find the solutions. Iron fist approach is no permanent solution to any problem and it cannot enable us to hammer out a solution. By employing such type of policy you can calm down people for some time but its results could prove more devastating in the long run. Painkillers are a temporary relief not cure. History is replete with the saga that great emperors who were not with the tune of the time were swept to the junkyard of history.
Nazir Jahangir is a freelance writer and columnist
