‘Compromise must for solving Kashmir issue’

Dr. Nyla Ali Khan PHOTO/The Kashmir Magazine

Dr. Nyla Ali Khan is a Visiting Professor at the University of Oklahoma and former professor at the University of Nebraska-Kearney. She is the author of two books, including The Fiction of Nationality in an Era of Transnationalism and Islam, Women, and Violence in Kashmir: Between Indian and Pakistan, and several articles that focus heavily on the political issues and strife of Jammu and Kashmir. Khan was born in New Delhi but raised up in Kashmir Valley. He parents are both Kashmiris: Mother, Suraiya Abdullah Ali, is a retired professor of literature, and father, Mohammad Ali Matto, is a retired physician. She is the granddaughter of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.

In an interview with The Kashmir Magazine, Dr Nyla Ali Khan says that the National Conference is Jammu and Kashmir’s only indigenous political organisation. Excerpts:

Q. Tell us something about your recent book?

A. The Book, The Life of a Kashmiri Woman: Dialectic of Accommodation and Resistance, was meant to be a biography of my maternal grandmother, Begum Akbar Jahan, but it turned out to be what is called an auto/biography. So that is a new genre. Instead of writing about the private life of my maternal grandmother, I chose to focus on her political and public persona and I tried to focus how inextricably I can connect it to the politics of Jammu and Kashmir right from 1930, right from the time the Kashmiri nationalist movement began in the princely state of J&K to enable the evolution of the political consciousness of the people of J&K, particularly of the Valley. I wrote about the cultural awakening that occurred during that period and how her life was inextricably involved with the entire movement. And while writing about her, I ended up exploring my own identity as well and the identity of a nation. So I delineate my own political identity and ideologies and discourses – political, religious, social, and gender that I have been raised within and how those have impacted who I am today and how those have influenced my thinking. Instead of writing about her personal life – there are a few anecdotes in the book about personal moments that I shared with her – underscored the political milestones in her life right from her wedding in 1932: her involvement in the Quit Kashmir Movement and later right after independence, partition of India, creation of Pakistan when we had the women’s Self-defense Corps here; her involvement in the cultural awakening and in the transition that Kashmiri women made from home and to the political arena, and that movement comprised not just women of elite and educated families but women of the grass root level as well.

Q. Do you think the present day Kashmiri woman is politically emancipated?

A. You see, Kashmiri women have been historically involved in political movements and we have had political and social movements that have transcended religious and ideological divides. We have had those movements in the past which, unfortunately, we have not been able to develop now because we have a lot of factions and a fragmented society. There is also a growing tendency to think of Kashmiri women as a monolithic entity. So the people of one regional identity or people of same ideological or political orientation come together and form a group or political organization in which there is no heterogeneity of thought, thinking, or ideology. Although Kashmiri women have come a long way in terms of education and professionalization, but we can’t deny that gender discrimination still exists in our society. We are a patriarchal society like many other societies in this part of the world and in the west as well. There are instances of domestic violence and human trafficking in the West as well which often gets overlooked when we talk about women’s problems and gender issues in the developing world.

Q. Message to the Kashmiri women?

A. You know, one of the main differences between Kashmiri society or Kashmiri Muslim society and other Muslim societies in the world is that there has been an emphasis on education and professionalization of women, particularly middle class women, in this part of world. Kashmiri women, particularly Kashmiri Muslim women, were an oppressed lot until 1950. Kashmiri Muslim society has taken a lot of time to come out of the morass of poverty and illiteracy. I think I am the third generation educated woman in my family, while a Kashmiri Pandit woman of my age probably belongs to the tenth or eleventh educated generation in her community. We need to encourage women to make headway and progress in professional fields. We need to create forums at which they feel comfortable to assert themselves professionally. We need to create the kind of mindset where a woman is not objectified or sexualized but is seen as an entity capable of contributing positively and constructively to our society as well as to her community. And in order to make that contribution women should not feel like that they need to give up their cultural identity or give up their positive cultural position as every tradition of ours is not regressive. There are ideas in our society and culture that give women a position of respectability, which we should encourage and maintain. So we don’t require westernization of our women in order to be progressive.

Q. Future of National Conference in the state after the party’s decimation in recent polls?

I think the National Conference is the only indigenous political organisation in Jammu and Kashmir. The NC since 1938 has played an active role historically in the political and economic emancipation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In the past, it was more influential in the Kashmir Valley than in other parts of the state. Even today it retains a certain amount of political influence in the Kashmir Valley more than it does in Jammu and Ladakh. Historically, NC was a great organization and historically encouraged and enabled the people of J&K to make headway economically and politically by leaps and bounds. It also created a forum at which the voices of people could be heard and at which the people of the state, particularly the people of the Valley, could voice their political aspirations. Historically, it has been a regional political force to contend with. And in the 1940s untill 1953, then even after 1975 (we can be as critical of the Indira-Abdullah accord of 1975 as we like), until the death of Sheikh Sahab in 1982, the NC maintained its image as the symbol of Kashmiri nationalism. But after 1982, the NC as a political organisation (and its ideology) became diluted. One of the reasons was the fragmentation within the organisation which came as a terrible blow to the credibility of this organisation. And after 1989 in particular, its image as a symbol of Kashmiri nationalism and as a legitimate voice of the political aspirations of the people of J&K, diminished. I think the lack of accessibility within the organisation and the lack of connect with the people and the inability to feel the pulse of the masses besides the politics of appeasement vis-à-vis national political organisations has been damaging.

Q. NC performance in past six years, particularly of Omar as CM?

When a political organisation is brought to power by the electorate, they repose their faith and trust in the organization, Particularly in the very paranoid and hostile atmosphere in J&K, if the people of the state garner the courage to go to an election booth in order to make their voices heard, even after electoral politics has lost its credibility to some extent, it becomes very important not to let them down. It is very important to respect the faith the electorate has shown in you by electing you to office. I think at a time when great damage has been done on the economic, political, social and environmental fronts besides a large number of human rights violations, a political organisation like NC, which was, in yesteryears, a great regional power to contend with, needs to focus on governance, needs to realise that the people who vote them into office have the power to hold them accountable, needs to realise that the institutions that have suffered over the past 25 years have become dysfunctional and should be made transparent. You see, violence means were employed in our state, not just by Indian security forces but by militant organisations as well. The nation states of India and Pakistan thought that deploying violence in our state was the only legitimate way to achieve whatever political aspirations they had. But that was never the way to go, and we have realised that. And in the process our society has been militarized and brutalized over the years. It is a militaristic culture that we have now. So we need to create an atmosphere of accountability and transparency. All governments and all heads of the government need to be accessible and approachable. They are representatives of the people not only of the elite but also of people at the grass roots level. A political organization, particularly one like NC, is not made and strengthened by the top rung leaders; it is made and strengthened by its grass roots level workers. So as long as the grass roots level workers of that organization are strong and passionate, the party will not be completely wiped off. The cadre has to be strengthened because they’re the ones who built the organization. So the head of the government has to make sure that he doesn’t come across as the representative of a small elite group but the representative of the masses.

Q. Was 1975 Indira-Sheikh Accord a treachery with the people of J&K?

A. Between 1953 and 1975, while Sheikh Sahib was not on the political scene he was removed deceptively by the Govt. of India and shuttled from one jail to the next. He was kept in political externment for a while. At that time, the NC under the leadership of Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad and G M Sadiq was completely diluted. In fact under the leadership of Sadiq sahib it was almost assimilated into the Indian National Congress and became dependent on the INC at that time. So when Sheikh sahib returned in 1975 and made the decision to go ahead with Indira Gandhi, some of political analysts saw that as an abject surrender. I don’t quite feel that way. I see him as a statesman as it was very difficult decision for him to make. He returned to a society in which corruption had been institutionalized. He returned to a society in which the Govt. of India had been very generous with subsidies in order to make the people of the state as inefficient as possible. He returned to a people who were completely dependent on the good offices of the GoI and had bogged down our political autonomy as well as our economic autonomy, and our side in Pakistan was suffering as well, which we do not know much about because that is very carefully concealed by the Government of Pakistan. I think it is very important to talk about the erosion of political autonomy in Pakistan- administered Kashmir. I think it is also important to condemn and seek redress of the human rights violations that occurred in our part of Kashmir in the 1990’s. It is also important to talk about how governments are installed and controlled by Islamabad in PaK as well & how our people in that part of state lack a substantial and credible political voice. So I think it was a very difficult decision for Sheikh sahib to make and, at the time, he chose to be pragmatic. He chose to return to Kashmir in order to save whatever political autonomy could be retrieved at that stage. You know during Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad’s regime, and particularly during G M Sadiq’s tenure we were almost made an integral part of India. The notion that our accession to India was provisional was shelved by the GoI at that point of time.

Q. How do you see Dr. Farooq’s coronation as President of NC in 1981?

A. You know, at that point of time when Farooq Sahib was made President of the National Conference in 1981 by Sheikh Sahib, he was a political greenhorn. He was cutting his teeth in politics and was not a seasoned politician. But he was a very well-liked man. You know, as opposed to Farooq Sb., G M Shah was a seasoned politician back then. Farooq Sahib was a young parliamentarian and was not an experienced politician in the political labyrinth of J&K but was well liked and very popular. He was an approachable man and charismatic (he still is a charismatic politician), which was very appealing. You know, the kind of democracy that we have in our part of the world is a dynastic democracy. And in our part of the world major mainstream political organizations revolve around a particular family or around a particular dynasty. While dynastic politics has its flaws and problems, one of the pros of political dynasties is that dynasty gives political organization stability and a rallying point. Look at the Indian National Congress, you look at the PPP in Pakistan or you look at the National Conference here and now look at the PDP, which is a relatively young political organization. All these organizations rally around a family or a dynasty. But I think the ideology that Sheikh Sahib had established and political credibility that he had established was severely damaged after the fragmentation within the political organization. The damaging role played by the Indian National Congress in J&K after the death of Sheikh Sahib in 1982 proved detrimental as well… When Farooq Sahib returned to power in 1986 and then elections were held in 1987, he forged a coalition with INC and later on in 1996 he went on to forge a coalition with BJP. And I understand that he probably had his political compulsions and felt compelled to forge ties with an Indian national organization. He probably felt that he would not be allowed to function without the forging a coalition with a mainstream Indian national political organisation. But those compulsions led to the people losing faith in NC as a credible regional force..

Q. How do you view PDP-BJP alliance for J&K?

A. You see, the PDP unlike the NC is not an indigenous political organization. The core of the PDP, unlike the core group of the original NC, (I’m talking about the NC under the leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah) did not evolve organically from the grass root level. It is an open secret that the PDP, which was founded in 1998, is a creation of the Govt. of India. Now, unfortunately, the loss of credibility of mainstream politics and the loss of credibility of separatist politics as well has had terrible consequences. Mufti Sahib (Current Chief Minister) was a loyal congressman until he founded his own political organization. He was Home Minister in the federal cabinet in the 1990s, which is when the political situation in J&K was extremely turbulent. Mufti sahib, like other politicians, should be held accountable for the turmoil that existed in our state in 1990 because he was in the federal government at the highest level and could have made his voice heard. And that was the time when the response of the Indian military to the insurgency in J&K was very belligerent. Both the PDP and the BJP, during the election campaign claimed that they had no ideological commonality. The PDP came to power in 2002 on the plank of self rule, while the BJP came to power on the plank of integration of J&K into the Indian union and the removal of Art. 370. And the BJP over the years has played a damaging role in the rest of the country with their Hindutva agenda, with their emphasis on an essentialist Hindu ideology, and the restoration of right wing Indian nationalism. I, as the well wisher of the people of J&K and as a common Kashmiri, think that if the two can deliver, if they can respect the political aspirations of the people of J&K, carve economic avenues for the people of the state, if they can bring about some kind of damage control which they have not done yet, it would be good. They have been in office less than a year, so we can’t write them off at this stage. If they deliver, that is good for the people of the state. But I don’t see the PDP as a symbol of Kashmiri nationalism and the authentic and credible voice of the political aspirations of the people of J&K. And also the kinds of divides that we have in our state now – regional and religious divides, rural and urban divides, is very problematic for the state. Although these divides existed earlier as well, they have become worse now. The political discourse in our state has become very harsh.