From the archives, 11 May 2001

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

EDITORIAL COMPLACENCY OR COMPLICITY?

Part I

 

‘Mufti Mohammad and his opposite polarity in views as once the Union Home Minister and now as the ‘champion’ of the ‘Kashmiri cause’ is a glaring example of the amazing dexterity of fertilizing the mind and conscience to suit the moment.’ (p. 14)

 

‘Even Mufti Mohammad, who held high office of the Union Home Minister and had sacrificed national interest in ensuring the safety of his kidnapped daughter Mehbooba (sic), now has no hesitation to change tack and espouse the ‘kashmiri cause’ along with the same daughter. The question that arises is from where emanates the spark of his amazing dexterity in changing tack from being a ‘Delhi Durbar’ man to being the revolutionary champion of the ‘Kashmiri Cause?’ (p. 16)

- Brig SK Raychaudhuri, VSM; ‘Roots of Militancy in J&K’, Defence Management, Nov 2000

 

The above quotes individually and cumulatively amount to slander and are ample ground for the institution of a defamation suit against the author by the targets of his invective. With regard to the kidnap crisis of Dec 1989, the author’s attention is invited to the book by one of India’s foremost policemen – Mr. Ved Marwah’s ‘Uncivil Wars’. It is astounding that there is no reference to an authoritative source on the contention advanced by the author. This is against publishing ethics, for which the editorial committee is as responsible as any prospective author. Oversight of this magnitude (since the opinion egregiously repeats itself in a space of two pages) is indeed an abdication of editorial responsibility.

 

The matter is graver, for the two eminent persons that the author castigates are practicing politicians, one of who is presently holding an elected office. To call Ms Mehbooba Sayeed merely ‘Mehbooba’ (p. 16) is ungentlemanly, if not insulting. (And its not Mehbooba Sayeed, but Rubaiya Sayeed.) For a uniformed person to express himself without inhibitions in this manner is to participate in politics. Whereas this may be an exercise of a personal choice by the author, it is certainly not so for the Journal – representative as it is of the military, being published as it is by a joint services institution. The disclaimer that ‘the views expressed in the articles published in this journal are those of the respective authors and not necessarily of the Defence Services or the CDM’ is inadequate cover to permit the voicing of such unsubstantiated views. Even though the ‘Editorial Board reserves the right to amend, add or delete any matter to make the article suitable for publication’ is mentioned on your information page, the right to do so appears not been exercised here – though the issue cries out for editorial intervention.

 

Part II

 

A comment on the section in the article ‘Genesis of Insurgency in J&K’ (pp. 15-17) is imperative, lest this misinformation pass for ‘historical insight’ (an editorial comment on the article in ‘In This Issue’ [p. ii]). This distortion of the well-established narrative of history cannot be allowed to contaminate the minds of your readers – many of who are wont to take what appears in the pages of your eminent journal as authentic.

 

‘Kashmir is one such princely state that used the independence movement as a cloak to overthrow the Dogra dynasty.’

 

That there was an interaction with the wider national movement for independence, owing in some measure to the personal involvement of Mr. Nehru, is well recorded, but to infer that there was no idealism in the relationship and only an instrumental one-sided ‘use’ by the Kashmiris is untenable. It may be noted that no footnotes accompany the article that could guide readers into making a self-assessment of the veracity of the author’s sources. The point is that ‘radical statements’ require substantiation with facts prior to any  ‘dispassionate analysis’ (p. 15).

 

‘Therefore, pragmatically analysed, Sheikh Abdullah at no point of time, was interested in joining the Union of India or the theological state of Pakistan. He actually wanted to be the ruler of J&K though with the respectability of a political cloak.’

 

Though the ‘In This Issue’ mentions that the article is one that looks at the ‘psyche of the people of Kashmir’, here the author dwells on the ‘psyche’ of an individual. To purport to know what a person ‘actually wanted’ is to play God!

 

‘The clauses of the Instrument of Accession and the clever manner of advising the ruler of J&K to requisition the Indian troops to sanitise Kashmir from the Pakistani raiders indicates that he shrewdly ensured his unbridled political supremacy and his secret political agenda.’

 

No agency is accorded to Mr. Nehru, Mr. Patel, Lord Mountbatten, Mr. VP Menon, Mr. Mahajan and Mr. Hari Singh – major players in their own right in the drama at independence. The advice the Sheikh gave was on acceding to the Maharaja’s requisition for troops. It was given directly to Mr. Nehru at his house in New Delhi. But details of history are not the point one wishes to raise here.

 

‘This astute maneuvering yet again typifies the Kashmiri psyche and personality.’

 

To jump from the examination of the role of an individual (Sheikh Abdullah) to stereotype an entire community is not quite what passes for sustainable analysis. It is suggestive of abuse of the fair name of a community. A page later the author does it yet again:

 

‘Again it exemplifies the complex interpersonal and ego matrix that complicates the comprehension of the Kashmiri mind.’

 

‘Therefore it is obvious that these leaders have only subscribed to the Kashmiri instinct of survival and made hay while the sun shines.’

 

Such license for generalization does not live up to the Editorial hope expressed thus: ‘Our endeavor to spread management culture through ‘Defence Management’… has been very encouraging’. The latest findings of the human genome project have put to rest the notion that ‘race’ constitutes a set of characteristics shared uniformly across its ‘members’. So to say that Kashmiri leaders are the way they are because that’s the way Kashmiris are, and simultaneously to say that this is the way Kashmiris are from the way the leaders are is tautology.

 

‘Sheikh Abduallah’s subsequent actions and even the elimination of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee indicates his resolve to ensure the isolation of Kashmir so as to consolidate his total control and ensure that Kashmir remains his personal fiefdom.’

 

The important point being raised here is that the ‘history’ that the author advances has votaries in India - not in the scholarly community, but in the political ‘far right’. Its intrusion into a professional journal cannot be allowed to go uncontested. To accuse the Sheikh of murder, as the author appears to do, is undignified. One is tempted to use the word ‘hogwash’, used by the author to describe ‘the concept of muslim brotherhood’ (the ummah) (p. 17). It must be remembered, that it was the pressure from the ‘far right’, to include Mr. Mukherjee that made the Sheikh suspect the longevity of secularism in India – an aspect that the author ascribes solely to the personal ambition of the Sheikh. 

 

Moving beyond the section in question, the author’s proclivity to generalize is evident yet again at a more disturbing instance -

 

‘They are well aware of the plight of erstwhile East Pakistan, where the Muslim experiment of the two nation theory floundered and finally capsized.’ (p. 19)

 

Serious objection can be raised to the use of the term ‘muslim experiment’ – not only in terms of facts and prudence, but also aesthetics.

 

‘The leaders who followed the Sheikh were ‘secularists’ to the extent that they were granted unbridled suzerainty within the Indian Constitution.’

 

One of the major critiques of the management of the Kashmir issue is that the advantages of India’s democracy were not made available to the people of Kashmir. Therefore to call the state of affairs after the imprisonment of the Sheikh as ‘unbridled suzerainty’ is incomprehensible. Secondly, to put the word ‘secularists’ in quotes conveys a message not gone into here for reasons of time and space.

 

‘Kashmiris, being ambivalent in nature, are neither for nor against terrorism

 

‘Therefore, it was a matter of choice between sure death at the hands of terrorists or reporting actual of imagined human rights violations against the Security Forces and still breathing Gods own fresh air.’

The contradiction in the two statements in two back to back paragraphs is too self-evident to need elaboration. One wonders if there is any other community that would have behaved differently to include the martial community - the Sikhs, of whose plight in the bad days of terrorism in Punjab similar statements were made. Therefore the ‘ambivalence’ can be ascribed to the circumstance, rather than to some commonly shared character trait. Therefore the approach in the article of seeking answers to the problem in the ‘psyche’ of the Kashmiris is questionable.

 

In fact, it is believed that in prominent families there are important government functionaries and at the same time pro-terrorist members if not terrorists themselves. It must be realized that this rather queer situation is not prompted by any strong convictions.’

 

From the first sentence it is cannot be made out whether we are being treated to a ‘fact’ or to ‘belief’. Does it mean – It is ‘believed’ to be a ‘fact’ but is not so? Next, the situation is by no means ‘queer’. It is an understandable reaction to cope with difficult times. However, such divides across families could well be on issues of ‘conviction’ - which the author dismisses without telling us the reasons for doing so. It is relevant to note that upto 10000 militants have been killed in J&K, and over 30000 have perished in the conflict. So is it really ‘that there is no actual antipathy towards the security forces’ and is it ‘a sham to pretend that they are with the terrorist opinion’? Can this be answered merely by the author’s reference to a ‘heart to heart explanation’ the author received from a (Kashmiri?) interlocutor? This cannot be classified as ‘research’ nor ‘significant experiences of learning’ as required of articles by you (See Journalistic Support on the information page).

 

Part III

 

‘The Kashmiri mind and the psyche is too complex and the above commentary is but only (sic) a drop in the ocean of vast complexities. It is essential that it be studied in detail if indeed there is a genuine desire of non-Kashmiris to solve the problem.’ (p. 15)

 

The Kashmiris are shrewd and wise. They only require direction.’ (p. 19)

 

The point that one wishes to raise in this part is that analysis of  ‘psyche’ of human collectives can put the clock back to the times when eugenics was a ‘science’. The remarks that get made in such exercises can be taken as politically incorrect, if not racist. In short, this unidimensional, monocausal, approach to understanding the Kashmir issue is deterministic, and in so being is eminently questionable.

 

That being the context, the two quotes above need to be examined conjointly. It appears that given the nature of the ‘mind’ of the Kashmiri, it requires ‘non-kashmiris’ to solve the ‘problem’. This they (the non-kashmiris) can do by providing ‘direction’. Such thinking is the logical outcome of a colonial outlook. He takes forward the colonial/orientalist project of the Imperial Gazetteer, which he so fondly quotes (p. 14). It borders on the authoritarian and is anti-democratic. Perhaps that’s what his parting words mean – ‘Pious platitudes and homilies have proved a failure and must be given a quick burial. This alone can solve the Kashmiri imbroglio’ - as unlikely a ‘solution’ as any. 

 

Since the author’s version claims to be ‘Another View’ (the subtitle of the article), it behooves on the author to substantiate his claims more rigorously. The bio-data of the author does not reveal his credentials to indulge in psychological or historical analysis without recourse to the work of established authorities on the subject. Revisionism is indeed more arduous than defending the established narrative. It is a hardship the author has avoided at his peril. Lastly, for the sake of credibility of the Journal, a more intimate scrutiny of the contributions from the environment is recommended, especially where they purport to be ‘radical’. It is a service the readers (such as the present writer) expect, and may be emboldened to demand.  

 

In passing, pray can anyone decipher this:

 

‘Equating this type of personality somersaults in pure management terms and personality template perceptions to solving the Kashmir problem in a scientific manner is the root cause of the problem festering, rising to a boil and then simmering.’ (p.16)

______________________________________________________________________