Rajouri (IoK News): Local journalists and reporters have reported that several people of the Gujjar Bakarwal community are protesting here to demand the protection of their Scheduled Tribes status.
The Gujjar Bakarwal tribes took out rallies against the proposed move to give Scheduled Tribe status to the Pahari-speaking people and raised slogans against the government’s decision.
The protestors termed it a robbery of their rights and the government should avoid such decisions.
The Gujjar Bakarwal Youth Association held a protest in the Gandoh sub-division of Doda district during which they raised slogans against the government for the injustice being done to this section.
The protestors led by Manzoor Samsial and Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool said that the Gujjar Bakarwal community is already suffering from injustice and now the government is trying to give ST status to the Paharis. He said that the government is using the ST as a vote bank by showing them a green garden.
The protestors said that the present government is going to give ST status to Paharis for their own interest and for vote bank, we will not tolerate it because Gujjar Bakarwal people are living in remote areas which are still facing all kinds of problems.
The Paharis people are not deprived, they are already in the upper caste, and they cannot be included in the ST level in any case.
In the press conference, the protestors said that the current government and the governor’s administration should act sensibly, otherwise there will be a very wrong result.
All Jammu and Kashmir Gujjar Bakarwal people have to come out to save their rights there are many people of the ST tribe living in the Chenab region and now slowly they will take to the streets soon until justice is served.
Insight on Kashmir // Danidhar fort in Rajouri district of Jammu Kashmir attracts less visitors than any other place of attraction in the area perhaps because of its dilapidated condition. However, its grandeur and loftiness is still worthy to be viewed particularly when one is inside the huge building. The Rajauri government describes that this historic fort was built during the reign of Mian Hathu- the then governor of Rajouri. He ruled this small governorate from 1846-1856 AD under the rule of the Lahore Darbar. In this very period, the governor started the construction of Dhannidhar Fort. The Fort was completed in 1855 AD. The main intention for the construction of the Fort was to keep Dogra Forces in this safer place because from this place, the whole Valley of Rajouri could be viewed. Apart from this during the Dogra regime, the revenue was collected from the farmers in the shape of grains and the grain was dumped in the fort which was sold later on.
Dhanidhar Fort in Rajouri
The fort has been constructed utilizing the remains of the Jarral Rajas buildings. Lt Nawang Kapadia describes that before the advent of the Muslims, Rajouri was ruled by Hindu Kings belonging to the ‘Pal’ dynasty who claimed to be descendants of the Pandavas. Dhanidhar Fort is believed to have been built by one of the kings of this dynasty. The fort commands a complete view of the Rajouri town. The name Dhanidhar was given to this highest elevation of land portion overlooking Rajouri town and the valley below, on the basis of a village called Dhanidhar in its close proximity.
A view from Dhanidhar fort
Rajouri”‘ is situated to the south of the Pir Panjal mountain range. Poonch is in its” west while Bhimber lies in the south.
Being on the Imperial route it was the halting place of Mughal Emperors during their visit to Kashmir. The fort was built by the Mughals with the help of stone blocks and baked bricks. There were mosques, gardens, rooms, assembly halls and hammams. All the structures, except the ruins of a small mosque in the market’ (Gujar Mandi) were once occupied by the cixil Hospital and forest department. Therefore it was not possible to trace out and prepare plans of the structures. Only the fortress wall towards riverside is standing there perhaps due to strong ‘ built of huge stone blocks and bricks. These could have been part of a riverside summer palace which used to be a common feature of the Mughal buildings on imperial route leading to Kashmir.
“Our generations will surely beg on streets and curse us on our graves, if we remained silent and divided. This is not an issue of religion or jobs anymore; this is an issue of our indigenous identity and culture”.
This is the article I have been waiting for years that gives a complete and broader view of the region beyond “Kasmir”. There is more in the entire state than the “Kashmir”. The neglect of the rest of the parts of the state other than the Valley by all the players in the game does complete injustice to the peoples comprising of multiple identities. My congratulations to the writer unfolding the realities that hitherto have been never exposed to the rest of the world, including within India and Pakistan. Promod Puri
However it is historically a distinct and important regional entity, comprising diverse culture, languages, traditions, religions and ethnic clans and tribes. When British Empire created the geographic boundaries of Kashmir, the then East India Company brought Kashmir Valley, Plains of Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan and Poonch together as a new state and placed Poonch as its suzerainty. The Poonch during that period comprised of Pir Panjal mountainous range including the larger portion of contemporary Azad Kashmir. But after the United Nations’ Ceasefire in January 1949 to end war between India and Pakistan, it was the Poonch state of Pir Panjal region that predominantly suffered and was partitioned into two territorial pieces. One piece remained within India’s control while other merged within the control of Azad Kashmir. The new domicile law that India recently imposed in Kashmir hence impacts the Pir Panjal region under Indian dominion of Kashmir, rather than that of Azad Kashmir’s State. The then Poonch region of Pir Panjal is now administratively divided into Rajouri and Poonch districts by India, and is attached with Jammu Province, after the creation of Line of Control (LOC) between India and Pakistan. The districts of Rajouri and Poonch in Indian administrative Kashmir is now largely connotated as Pir Panjal region. Thus, in the forthcoming part of this article, my reference to Pir Panjal region is largely focused on these two districts.
Revisiting a brief history Briefly, Pir Panjal region, which includes the entire areas of the then Poonch jagir (state/principality), was a part of Kashmir’s Kingdom when a renowned Chinese traveller Huein Tsang visited in 630 AD. It remained part of Kashmir’s Kingdom until 1596, under the Sultan in Kashmir valley. But after the fall of Kashmir’s’ Kingdom and during the sultanate of Mughal empire, the local governance was managed by the series of local Muslim Kings (jagirs). Most prominent and known among them was the jagir of Raja Rustam Khan (1760-1787). The region remained the Jagirs of local Muslim kings for 700 years. Later, the jagir of Poonch became the subject of Maharaja Ranjit Singh when his forces attacked and made Poonch as his dominion under the control of Prime Minister Raja Dhian Singh.
The Muslim kings of jagir of Pir Panjal subsequently lost their governance after the treaty of Amritsar on 16th of March 1846. The rule of Maharaja (King) in erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir remained forceful in the Poonch Jagir until 1947. People of Pir Panjal (The then Poonch) had actively and historically joined Maharaja’s military, but always remained a distinct linguistic and cultural identity. Pir Panjal’s language and culture never got subdued in Dogra’s culture of Maharaja, although it got slightly attraction of valley’s culture due to its religious proximity, trade and being part of Kashmir’s Kingdom in the past. In spite of distinct identity and culture, the emerging religious communal tensions during the partition of British India, the rise of Hindu right wing group Praja Parishad that was gaining sympathies from Maharaja and then the massacre of Muslims in Jammu, triggered resistance and rebellion among the people of the then Poonch, which later resulted into the partial liberation of Poonch from Maharaja’s rule. It later led to the formation of Azad Government under the leadership of Sardar Ibrahim Khan, which eventually merged into entire Azad Kashmir’s control.
The other part, which didn’t achieve merger with Azad Kashmir’s government is the present day Pir Panjal region, comprises of Rajouri and Poonch district. And it always remained a victim of cross LOC tensions impacting lives of local residents and increasing their vulnerabilities. Shift of Centre of Power When East India Company created this state of Jammu and Kashmir, the then Poonch became it suzerainty. It had its own centre of power and its 700 years long local governance by Muslim Kings yet hold the leadership and contemporary dynamics of power relations. But after the United Nations’ Ceasefire and creation of Line of Control, it was predominantly the region of Pir Panjal (the then Poonch) that was divided politically, territorially, and suffered the imbalance of power. Once an independent Muslim dominated jagir that was governed by its indigenous Muslim Kings and connected with the city of Mirpur for trade along with valley of Kashmir, it (the Indian side of current Pir Panjal) was attached with the then least connected Dogra dominated Jammu city and Province. Jammu Province now largely consists of Hindu population and political discourse due to demographic changes after the massacre of Muslims in Jammu and communal partition of British India. The current Pir Panjal region, a Muslim populated region, thus merged under the control of Hindu dominated Jammu Province.
The series of these historical events shifted the centre of Power and political discourses from Pir Panjal to Jammu city, whereas Pir Panjal became a periphery- an undermined identity with whom no one wished to engage. Perhaps, one of the reasons is that Pir Panjal’s’ elite, intellectual, educated, economic and politically empowered section moved to its other part of Azad Kashmir and hence it lost a deserved representation, resources and political space in discourses of Kashmir, after the United Nations’ ceasefire in 1949. Pawn of ethnic and communal tensions When Sheikh Abdullah was rising in Srinagar against Maharaja’s dominion, it was his contemporary Choudhary Ghulam Abbas who had popular support in Jammu and Pir Panjal. But after the ceasefire and creation of Line of Control, Choudhary Ghulam Abbas moved to other part of LOC. Sheikh Abdullah intended to fulfil this vacuum of leadership and inspired an idea of ‘Greater Kashmir’ with an intention to assimilate this Muslim dominated region of Pir Panjal with that of Kashmir valley in the late 1970s. But to limit the power of Sheikh Abdullah’s Srinagar, Indra Gandhi’s New Delhi introduced a divisive strategy and new arithmetic that calculated that Dogras and Gujjars can outnumber the ethnic Kashmiris of the valley since the latter remained consistent for their aspiration for Azadi (Freedom from India).
Researchers also argues, Gujjars Muslims (especially of Pir Panjal) were cultivated by New Delhi as counterweight to Kashmiri Muslims by offering structural amenities and elite positions. This strategy of ethnic divide also worked and was further deepened to create a drift within the Muslims of Pir Panjal when the intracommunity conflicts and tensions were groomed between Muslim Pahari and Muslim Gujjar tribes. This intracommunity and intratribal tension within Muslims of Pir Panjal thus helped to retain the dominance of Hindu Dogra Jammu over Pir Panjal region and to retain the power centre at Jammu rather than shifting discourses and resources back to Pir Panjal. While, on the other, it appears that these intra ethnic divides worked well for New Delhi to keep the control on increasing proximity of Pir Panjal with that of Valley’s religious brotherhood or a tap on seeds of Abdullah’s idea of Greater Kashmir, although his party National Conference still has a considerable hold and vote share in Pir Panjal region. This identity divide and intercommunity conflicts are also seeded further with divisive politics of religious communal tensions. If I present the divisive events in a chronological manner, firstly the divide of Pir Panjal and Valley emerged, it was then followed by the divide of intracommunity Pahari and Gujjars, and later the intrareligious tensions between Muslims and Hindus started happening eventually. Such communal tension certainly displays the creation of drift within the broader political identity and weakened the power and political representation and aspirations of entire Pir Panjal region. Indeed this drift is possibly benefitting those who grabs the political dominance and power as well as weakens any future potential rebellion that happened in 1947 and took portion of Pir Panjal to other side of LOC. A rebellion in Pir Panjal can cost more loss to the claims and politics of Jammu and New Delhi than that of separatist sentiments in the Valley. But, significantly, such pattern of political development indicates that Pir Panjal became a sufferer that has been appropriated as a pawn in the game of powers, political aspirations and discourses in Kashmir. But there are also mistakes by people of Pir Panjal to remain divisive and ignorant of their strength and certainly the onus now lies on the people of Pir Panjal itself to reclaim, reflect, strategize and make allies of mutual benefits. Indigenous demography at Stake: A Concern and Emerging Risk The brief look over the series of events and intention in the past has shown that Pir Panjal region, once an identity and influence of its own with tolerance of diversity, is structurally, socially and politically divided and diminishing. It has become further complicated and weak after the abrogation of article 370 and the enactment of new law that took the statehood of Kashmir. As vulnerable to hegemony of Jammu and political distancing with Muslims of Kashmir, the people of Pir Panjal are trapped in a hard road ahead.
The youth, educated class, professionals and elders of this regions, irrespective of their class, tribe and clan, are now concerned about the demographic change or increasing communal tensions due to new domicile law that is seen of having potential to repeat Jammu Massacre’s type repression. For People of Pir Panjal, the major emerging concern is that the monster of demographic change might start from their region and then will tilt towards the Muslims of valley. Pir Panjal already has considerable amount of Hindu population and just a minor shift of population change in domiciles has potential to make the Muslims of Pir Panjal as a minority on their own land. And as their internal conflicts have already weakened the communities, the changing role of Jammu can significantly facilitate that demographic transition along with machineries of ultra-Hindu right wing government from New Delhi. Pir Panjal would then be complete dominion of Jammu representing a Hindu majority sentiments. Perhaps, this is what my childhood friend was attempting to indicate about his concern of losing identity of Pir Panjal and its loosing distinct culture. As pointed in earlier sections, the Poonch rebellion in the history was a triggering point that led the division of Kashmir and formation of Azad Kashmir state. If repressive events are repeated in Pir Panjal, it has similar potential to encourage more armed resistance and hence would increase further violence. But, on the other, the current weakening state of affairs has made it hard for people of Pir Panjal to either resist repression through aggressive politics or stay constantly as a losing pawn of the system.
However, this is the time when People of Pir Panjal are alarmed to predict potential future consequences and re-strategizing its politics before any type of violence further harms them. The emergent discourse for People of Pir Panjal is thus indicating a demand for collective and non-violent response to their concerns and a need of making allies of mutual benefits, rather than deepening their divisive politics.
About the author:
Jaffer Latief Najar works as a researcher at International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, Netherlands. He has a book on community relations with a focus on Pir Panjal region into his credit. He can be reached on Twitter or LinkedIn
Over 20 years have passed after the Kargil war, yet, both India and Pakistan are miles away from ground realities in Jammu and Kashmir. There is no evidence that could suggest both these countries have learned any lessons after the Kargil adventure also known as a misadventure. They have chosen to stick to their guns and take a stubborn approach to let each other down in Kashmir. In fact, this approach of frustrating each other’s efforts on Kashmir has no link with the ground realities of the conflict zone.
Two decades ago, Pakistan was ruled by a civilian government led by former Primer Minister Nawaz Sharif. Yet, the de-facto rulers of the country were powerful military commanders. They backed an infiltration on the Line of Control (LoC) in disputed Jammu and Kashmir that led both countries to an undeclared war. India was headed by Prime Minister Vajpayee and both countries were far from reaching at a common ground to settle the Kashmir issue. In reality, the 1998-nuclear tests had put them on a greater risk of further alienation on Kashmir.
As there was a heightened sense of gaining absolute military power in the region. This perpetual muscle flexing policy has never brought any good to the people of Kashmir. There was a need for an international mediation on Kashmir in 1998/99. The need of a global approach on Kashmir is still there in 2019.
In fact, there is little progress on international mediation efforts towards settling Kashmir. None of these two countries can proudly face any international forum where they could say that a forward progress has been made in last two decades. In reality, they have moved back and taken steps that have been damaging not only for the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir but also for both countries.
There is no real intention to solve the issue politically and diplomatically. This statement is true on both sides. The steps Pakistan has been taking on Kashmir in last 20 years mainly served more of its own interests than the people of Kashmir. For instance, keeping the electorate and military on their side has been the policy of political leaders of all those parties that took turns in the government. The political leaders and political parties from Pakistan administered Kashmir have no say in mainstream politics of Pakistan.
In national politics they are almost invisible and unnoticeable. They are rarely taken on board when making decisions of national politics in Pakistan. Due to the so-called separate legislative status given to AJK Legislative assembly, the people of Azad Kashmir have no say in decision making in Islamabad. So, the responsibility of devising and guarding the state policy of finding ways and means of diplomatic and political solution of Kashmir issue mainly stays within the corridors of the federal government. Now, how much that policy have been successful? At least, people in Jammu and Kashmir have not reaped the fruit of this policy.
The damages to Kashmir are not limited to lack of will towards political solution. The Indian held Kashmir has been facing a spate of home grown insurgency that has led the terror-hit state into a situation where India took the decision of the abrogation of Article 370. Ever since the rise of BJP and RSS in India Muslims in general and Kashmiris in particular have been targeted of a state run policy of hatred. So, there is no intent to deliver on Kashmir politically or diplomatically, at least in Modi’s India. After two months of lock down in Kashmir valley, Indian government has indicated that any future political setup in the state would be either controlled by the Centre or a BJP backed government based in Srinagar. Modi government has decided to remove even those rights of the people of Jammu & Kashmir that they had secured even before the partition of India.
On other side of the fence, Pakistan’s rulers have still got a sensational approach to deal with the issue. They are more than convinced that Kargil was a right option towards any solution to Kashmir issue and India should not forget what the lesson taught to them in the Kargil war. The people of Jammu and Kashmir question the legitimacy of such a rhetorical approach towards solving the issue. They have witnessed that violence breeds violence and it has no end. The level of frustration and alienation has gone up ever since the events of Kargil. In fact, neither the politicians, nor the military have acknowledged the bitter reality of growing feelings of alienation and mistrust in Pakistan administered Kashmir.
The authorities are now routinely facing angry mobs either threatening to cross the Line of Control or putting demands of an independent Kashmir. The more recent spate of protests have been sparked by events in other side of the state. Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 by India, Pakistani authorities have blocked various attempts by activists from pro independence parties to cross the Line of Control.
Last Saturday, the activists from the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) began the march from southern districts of Mirpur and Bhimber and after two days they reached at Line of Control (LoC) near Chakothi in Muzaffarabad region. There were various attempts at national and local level to stop these protesters to violate the cease-fire line. Yet, they are adamant to cross it and show their commitment to Kashmir cause.
In fact, both India and Pakistan are far from resolving the Kashmir conundrum. Pakistan, by not listening to independence voices in Azad Kashmir is in danger of facing a larger rebellion from Kashmiris as growing frustration can be seen and observed in recent protests. On the other side, India by revoking Kashmir’s special status, has further alienated Kashmiris from the rest of India.
On 26th October 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, the last ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to India.
72 years later, and in our second event of the Michaelmas term, we raise the motion “This House believes that Jammu and Kashmir is now Occupied Territory.”
This is in light of the ongoing lockdown in Kashmir and the summary revocation of Articles 370 & 35A, which provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
This will be a British Parliamentary style debate with three proposition and three opposition speakers. If you are interested in speaking, please write to cambfirec@gmail.com.
September 25, 2019: Over 450 academics in wide-ranging fields from across the United States are calling on India to immediately lift the communication blackout and siege imposed in Kashmir and grant Kashmiris the right to self-determination.
In a letter, professors, researchers and scientists demanded the Indian government cease the communications blackout in Jammu and Kashmir, release detainees, and allow journalists to report freely. The signatories hail from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown and Brown universities as well Colorado, Indiana, Oklahoma and Rutgers, among many others.
Prominent names signing the letter include Cornel West, professor of practice at Harvard Divinity School and the Department of African and African American Studies; Juan Cole, history professor at University of Michigan; Michael Rothberg, 1939 Society Samuel Goetz Chair in Holocaust Studies, UCLA; Hatem Bazian, Director of the Islamophobia Studies Center at UC-Berkeley; Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Distinguished Professor, Syracuse University; David Palumbo-Liu, Professor of Comparative Literature, Standford University; James C. Scott, Professor of Political Science and Anthropology, Yale University; John Esposito, Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University; Rabab Abdulhadi, Professor Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas, San Francisco State University and Noura Erakat at Rutgers University.
The letter denounces the Indian government’s suppression of the Kashmiri population, and its deployment of tens of thousands more troops, in what the academics cite as “one of the largest military occupations on the globe.”
“As people of conscience who are committed to the principles of freedom, dignity and justice, we refuse to remain silent as India—which touts itself as the international community’s largest democracy—continues its assault on due process, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press,” the letter notes.
The letter was sent the United Nations Human Rights Council during its 42nd session in Geneva, Switzerland. The full text of the letter is available here.
Other academics signing the letter come from nearly a dozen countries, including India, U.K., South Africa, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Singapore, Germany, U.A.E, Turkey, Canada and Qatar.
More than 7 million people in Kashmir have been under siege for almost 50 days. On the evening of August 4, 2019, the Indian government disconnected telephone and internet services, shut down local media, restricted the movement of residents, arrested and detained at least 3,000 people and militarized entire neighborhoods.
The academics join a growing number of voices speaking out on Kashmir. American politicians, including Bernie Sanders, Beto O’ Rourke, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Andy Levin, Rep. Ted Lieu, Rep. Rashid Tlaib and Rep Don Beyer issued statements expressing concern about the situation in Kashmir. Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asia, Brad Sherman, also recently announced an upcoming Congressional hearing that will address human rights violations in Kashmir.
Stand with Kashmir is a Kashmiri diaspora-led international solidarity movement that seeks to end the Indian occupation and support the right to self-determination for the people of Kashmir.
Insight on Kashmir 