Regional political parties in india s. Bhatnagar pradeep kumar

45. Dev Batrohi: Constitutional And Political Aspects July 84 Events in Kashmir. Published by the Directorate of Information (Publication Division) J&K Govt Aug. 1984. p. 4.

46. The Kashmir Times. Nov. 4, 1982.

47. Dev Batrohi: July 84 Events in Kashmir Constitutional and Political Aspects.

48. Ibid.

49. The Times of India, New Delhi, 22 th June, 1977.

50. Zarina Banu Magrey: Eighth Parliamentary Elections in J&K State An. M. Phil Dissertation (Unpublished) 1986. p.76.

51. The Kashmir Times, Nov. 19, 1984.

52. The Daily Excelsior (English Daily, Jammu) Dec. 22, 1984.

53. The Kashmir Times, Feb.23, 1984, p. l.

54. The Kashmir Times, March 12, 1987.

55. The Kashmir Times, Feb.22, 1987 p. l.

56. The Kashmir Times, Feb.28, 1987. p. l.

57. International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences: Macmillan and Free Press USA 1986, Vol. 16, p. 387.

58. Shri Ram Maheshwari: Electoral Politics in National Metropolics Ritu Delhi. p1.

59. Vidya Bhushan: op. cit. p. 119.

60. Elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly, A phamplet issued by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting J&K Govt. year not known 9-53.

61. Z.M. Qureshi: Elections and State Politics of India, A case study of Kashmir (New Delhi) Sundeep Parkashan 1979 p 51.

62. Ibid. p. 54.

63. Ibid. p. 68.

64. Sheikh Nazir Ahmed: Toppling Game in Jammu and Kashmir J&K National Conference p 1.

65. Ibid.

66. Balraj Puri: "Portents of J&K Elections" in The Kashmir Times May 26&27, 1987.

185

THE MUSLIM UNITED FRONT IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR (1987)

P.S. Verma

Introduction

Generally, the people in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, in line with their political socialisation, tend to give far more importance to ethno-religious and regional identities than to considerations of a unified and secular political culture. This, among other things, has led to the development of a phenomenon in which northern Kashmair speaking valley, predominantly Muslim, has remained impregnated with Islamic fundamentalism and the Dorgri-speaking southern region, preponderantly Hindu, has become vulnerable to the Hindu chauvinistic tendencies. Occasionally, similar tendencies have been witnessed among the Tibetan-Mangoloid Budhists who form the major chunk of population in the Ladakh region. The Muslim fundamentalists generally make a show of their pan-Islamic loyality and attachment to the Muslim country across the border, whereas their counterparts in Jammu area like to over emphasise nationalism and a complete merger of the state of Jammu and Kashmir at par with the other states of the Indian Union. Likewise, the people in the Kashmir valley like to put more emphasis on the issue of autonomy of the state, whereas in Jammu they, in the existing set up, tend to favour a strong centre. The Kashmiri Muslim organisations often mount pressure for the autonomy of the state as against the centre whereas their counterparts in the Hindu dominated Jammu area demand autonomy against the Kashmiri Muslim domination.

Once in the early fifties the extremist section in the "Praja Parishad Movement" even moved for a resolution of "Quit-Jammu" against Sheikh Abdullah's government, though this move was foiled by the more mature and older leadership within and outside the Parishad. At times, demands have been made for the creation of a 'sub-state' for the Jammu region.

186

More recently, the "Shiv Sena" in Jammu even demanded for the creation of a separate "Dogra-land" amounting to the formation of a separate state for the Jammu region. Earlier in 1978-79, a person no less than Dr Karan Singh (former ruler of the State and a long time Central Minister) also warned mat if the Jammu regional problems were not tackled with understanding and imagination, it would lead to "separation of Jammu region from the Kashmir valley". In response to this, the Chief Minister, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, quickly retorted "if the majority of people in the Jammu region believe that they can progress by carrying out a separate state of Jammu, then there is nothing to stop them and we must part as friends."1 His reaction sounded more of a Kashmiri leader than a Chief Minister or leader of the whole state. Almost, similar was his reaction to the "All-party Action Committee of Ladakh" when it started an agitation for the regional autonomy" of the Ladakh region in 1981. At that time the Sheikh said that he would not stand in the way if Ladakh decided not to stay on with the State.2 Besides autonomy, a prominent Budhist leader of Ladakh, Kushak Bakula, "has for long been demanding direct Central administration over his area."3

Its is only rarely that a prominant leader or political group in the State has ever considered the unified or integrated state as something "sacrosanct". Even the Sheikh, without whom in fact nobody else could have easily prevented the Muslims of Kashmir "from being swayed by the perverse logice of partition", himself in an ambivalent manner had expressed his inclination towards the bifurcation of the State on community lines as early as in 1948. The idea was again formally revived in a memorandom to the U.N.O. on behalf of 110 prominent citizens of Kashmir Valley, presumbaly with the consent of Sheikh Abdullah, in 1963.4 This apart, from 1953 to 1975 he and his associates had emphasised and sought for the right of "self-determination' and Kashmir's distinct identity. Whereas, the "Praja Parishad" in Jammu had lauded an agitation against article 370 which had accorded a special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Likewise, in reaction to the demand for a plebiscite, the Praja Parishad fought for a "zonal plebiscite". "Expressing similar anxieties about possibility of the result of a plebiscitie being favourable to Pakistan, Chewang Rig/dm, President of the Budhist Association of Ladakh asserted, in a memorandum to Nehru, that Ladakhi Buddhists were a separate nation-with distinct race, language, religion and culture and claimed the right of self-determination for it, separately for Kashmir."5 Likewise fundamentalists in the Jamaat-e-Islami have been constantly pleading that federation of religious communities would be

187

a better arrangement than that of any secular basis for the reconstruction of the State.

Unfortunately, in the wake of people's mobilization more emphasis is placed on ethno-religious considerations rather than on culture, region or economic factors. Due to the concentration of the people of one community in a particular region, religion and region in the case of the state of Jammu and Kashmir have become almost synonymous. Therefore, any movement in the Jammu region would ultimately be identified with the Hindus, in Ladakh with the Buddhists and in the Kashmir valley with the Muslims. Most issues including the perdcnnial topic of discrimination in either of these regions have also been based mainly on the ethno-religious considerations. Even minor matters such as the settlement of the 1947 refugees, family welfare schemes, formation of new districts or assembly constituencies, opening of professional and technical institutions, distribution of funds for developmental activities, recruitments, transfers, promotions have been to some degree, influenced by religio-communal considerations. So much so, even the formation or shaping of most of the political parties, right from the very beginning, has been greatly determined by the factor of religion.

Instead of being as new such type of tendencies in the politics of the State have been gaining ground since long. The roots of such tendencies may be traced from the pre-partition period. Even the erstwhile Dogra rulers had used religion and other parochial ties of the people for maintaining their exploitative hold over the hapless Muslim masses in the State. Likewise, an organised freedom struggle against the autocratic Dogra rulers which begun around 1930 was also initiated and sustained on the basis of such primodial tics. The educated youngmen representing the Muslim middle class families had formed "All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conferences (1932)" which spearheaded the battle for freedom against the Dogra regime. The emotive and sentimental issues such as "Tauhin-i-Quran" (though mis-stated) were used to spark-off and ignite the movement in the State in the 1930s. Frequently, political speeches were made from the Mosques under the cloack of religious exhortations with a view to mobilizing the general masses. The movement had a revolutionary potential and was focussed against an old time oppressive and exploitative regime but owing to its being rooted into primodialism it failed to escape the trauma of a conservative and reactionary bias. The counterpart Hinduities viewed this movement as "pan-Islamic" in nature. Some old and the newly formed Hindu organizations in collaboration with the erstwhile rulers not only took to malign the movement but also

188

intensified the process of communalisation among the Hindus of various hues. As a result, the communal politics "reigned supreme both among the Muslim and the Non-Muslim communities"6 and the right type of the education could not be imparted to the people.

The elections held to the State Legislature within a period of four years from 1934 to 1938 had also revealed the height of communalism among Muslims and non-Muslims. Among the Muslims, the "Muslim Conference" and the "Azad Party Muslim Conference" were pitched against each other. The behaviour of these two Muslim parties became "so untoward that the fight for vote had become virtually a war between believers and non-believers" or what has been termed a "war between Islam and the Kafirs (infidelity)". Even the Ballot Box was religionised by the Azad Party.7 Incidenlly, the politics of the "Muslim United Front" of today has a close resemblance with that of the Azad Party of the thirties. However, like the Muslims, the Hindus were also mobilised by the communal groups such as the "Sanatan Dharma Yuvak Sabha" of the Kashmiri Pandits and the "Hindu-Sikh Naujawan Sabha" of Jammu province. These groups had a reactionary and communal character and obviously taken contradictory stands on most major issues of public importance. As an example, when the Muslim organisations demanded for the establishment of a "responsible government" their Hindu conterparts interpreted it as an effort to replace the Hindu raj by the Muslim rule. The Kashmiri Pandits even went to the extent of suggesting to all minority groups in the State to unite and organise under an "All Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Conference" for fighting their political and other demands separately.8

Fortunately, during the period between 1939 and 1947 the political life in the state remained somewhat free from the communal factor. It was a period when the frequency of interactions between the nationalist and local elite had considerably increased. There occurred hardly any noticeable communal polarisation in the Slate. Even the demand for self-determination echoing the CPI line and the "Quit-Kashmir" movement against the Hindu Dogra rulers in 1946 did not deflect the nationalist direction of the states politics. Nor was the holocaust of 1947 repeated in the Kashmir valley, although in Jammu some Muslims were killed by the Hindu communalists. But this trend could not be stabilised as the politics in the State in the early fifties again turned to a reverse phase. The Kashmiri Nationalism (which in reality had become indistinguishable from Muslim Nationalism in the valley) during the period following the arrest of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in August 1953 had also

189

acquired militant proportions. The Muslims in the valley were so mobilised and provoked that they, among other things, had also become vulnerable to secessionist politics. New organisations were formed to preach cummunal and secessionist politics. Important among these organisations were the political Conference (1953) of G.M. Kara, Plebiscite Front (August 1955) led by Mirza Afzal Beg and the Awami Action Committee of Maulvi Mohammad Farooq. Maulvi Farooq actually shot into prominance during the relic agitation in 1963-64. This phase coupled with communal and secessionist politics continued till 1975 when Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had agreed to assume power in accordance with the Delhi accord which was signed in November 1974. But the 22-year long movement launched by the late Sheikh and his followers had given a new meaning and dimension to the entire political fabric of the state. The events that followed and the forces that got created during this phase were bound to influence the state in a certain sense in the years to come. The MUF also happens to be the product of such type of politics in the state. Therefore, any systematic understanding about the MUF would certainly warrant the aforesaid discussion and analysis.

Origin, Composition and Ideology of the MUF

In terms of its origin, the MUF came into existence on the first day of Muharram in September, 1986. Prior to this, the fundamentalist groups which joined the Front had operated separately and had never projected collectively as an alternative to the National Conference (N.C.) in the Muslim dominated constituencies. In view of certain new developments around the mid-1980s these groups came to believe that the situation was quite favourable for strengthening their position and becoming a formidable rival to the ruling National Conference in the Valley, if not in the State. They had hardly any pretention of coming into power at the State level. Out of a variety of factors, which were considered by these groups as favourable, the split of the National Conference into two viz. the N.C. (Farooq) and N.C. (Khalida) seemed as most important. Besides this, the N.C. (F) and the ruling Congress(I) at the centre, at the time of the formation of the front, had also reached an agreement which was soon declared in the form of an "accord" on 7 November, 1986. Mention may be made here that in Kashmir even there exists an anti-centre attitude which percolate even down to some common people particularly in the Muslim dominated valley.

This accord which was the culmination of the political dialogue between the Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, and the Chief Minister, Dr. Farooq

190

Abdullah, was stated to be a forceful expression of the desire of the two leaders to accelerate "the pace of progress in this backward State and fight unitedly the obscurantist and disruptive forces".9 While summing up the spirit of the accord Dr. Farooq Abdullah said, "the biggest political gain 9for the accord will be to fight the united forces of disruption in Jammu or in Kashmir, to fight fundamentalists whether Hindu or Muslim and to be able to spend our energies in getting something better for the siate, remove poverty, disease and unemployment".10 It was on the basis of this Accord that the NC(F) and Congrcss(I) had joined hands and contested the March 1987 election as allies.

The Front leaders, as expected, interpreted this Accord as a sell-out of the State to Delhi. Likewise, they had also accused the late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah for abjectly surrendering before the Centre under the compulsions of power politics in 1975. The Sheikh under the November 1974 accord had given up the confrontationist path with the centre and agreed to assume the office of the Chief Minister on 26 February, 1975. He had also disbanded the "plebiscite Front" and revived his National Conference which in the changed context "had to cast away its pro-plebiscite robe and don the pro-accession attire". Besides the Delhi accord (1974), the Sheikh was also accused of converting the 'Muslim Conference' into the national Conference in 1939 and the State's accession to the Indian Union in 1947. But his role between 1953 and 1975 had won the appreciation of the Front Leaders. The Sheikh during this period used to address the people as "I will either secure a life of freedom and dignity for the Kashmir nation or die."12

Besides the Accord, the growing communal scenario in the country in general and the neighbouring State of Punjab in particular had also inspired the various fundamentalist groups to form a United Front against the ruling party. The state of Jammu and Kashmir had itself experienced a large-scale communal violence in February 1986 in which no life was lost but property worth of several crores was destroyed in certain towns of the valley like Anant Nag.

As regards the composition of the front, the major fundamentalist groups which had been banned together under the banner of the "Muslim United Front" in September 1986 were Jamaat-e-Islami,Umaat-e-Islamia, and Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen. The other constituents of the MUF were the Tahafuz-e-Islam units of different districts in the Valley. These units were essentially Jammaat-e-Islami outfits. Initially, the People's conference of Abdul Gani Lone and some other units including the one led by Mr. G M. Shah, the ex-Chief Minister and son-in-law of late Sheikh

191

Mohammad Abdullah, had also expressed solidarity with the Front. But later on they fell out on the election-eve because they could not be adjusted under the growing influence of the Jamaat-e-Islami. The Jamaat-e-Islami was more interested in ascertaining the cooperation of Dr. Qazi Nisar and Maulvi Abbas Ansari to the extent possible in achieving its political objectives. Since Dr. Nisar and Maulvi Ansari considered shrines as effective power centres they were found more suitable to the Jamaat than Mr. A.G. Lone and G.M. Shah. As aptly commented:

"By snapping links with Mr. A.G. Lone's People's conference the Muslim united Front has expectedly come into its own, a clergy outfit constituted by Jamaat-e-Islami to cover its own weaknesses. The latter, as is well known, has not been acceptable to the people in general in Kashmir mainly because of its too radical an approach to religion. For instance, it is not beholden to shrines, an attitude totally unacceptable to Kashmiris in general and Muslims in particular. It is this weakness which the highly scheming Jamaat leadership has sought to cover by ropping in Maulvis like Qazi Nisar and Abbas Ansari who, like many others of their clan, see Shrines as effective power centres".13

During the elections with the exception of Qazi Nisar and Abbas Ansari (a Shia leader) the Front virtually remained a Jamaat affair. A study of Party affiliations of those who had filed nominations as MUF candidates would also reveal that the Jamat had taken a quota of 24 seats on its own name and 16 other constituencies in the name of its satellite organisations.14 In all, the Front contested 53 assembly scats during the March 1987 elections.

The Jamaat which commands cadres numbering several thousands is a fundamentalist body. It calls for going back to the fundamentals of Islam. The secular system according to Jamaat neither allows Islam to flourish nor ensures safety and security of life of Muslims in India. Syed Ali Shah Geelani (a top Jamaat Stalwart), who before becoming a full time Jamaat activist in the early sixties also served as a school teacher, believes that any political system divorced from religion tends to be tyrranical. Once he said that even Ram Rajya would be far better for Muslims than the present Indian system.15 He perceives that by asking votes in the name of Islam and assurances to voters to bring Nizam-e-Mustafa (the prophet's order of governance or Islamic way of life) was not a crime but being true to Islam. Initially the Jamaat had achieved respectability in

192

the politics of Jammu and Kashmir during the 1972 assembly elections when it made its poll debut with five assembly seats.

Ideologically, the Jamaat believes in the religious purity and concerns itself with the affairs and activities of the Muslim community. But it has no affiliation with the All India Jamaat-e-Islami. The contention is that since the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not final how can it join any all-India Organisation or party. It has been repeatedly alleging that Delhi has converted Kashmir into its colony. Moreover, the Jamaat is reported to have pro-Pakistan leanings. The so called Islamic stance of the Post-Bhutto government in Pakistan and growing Pan-Islamic consciousness has further tempted the Jamaat to be friendly with Pakistan and favour the theory of self-determination for the settlement of the Kashmir Problem. While supporting Bhotto's execution, the Jamaat in Kashmir had also become victim of mass fury in April 1980.

Though it claims to believe in non-violence but in practice tends to draw inspirations from the militant tendency. Its youth wings and the militant organisations believe in militancy and at times instigate violence. The organisations such as Mahaz-e-Azadi, Peoples League, Tulba, Taf-usal Islam have a militant character.

The support structure of the Jamaat in the countryside has not spread as far and wide as in towns. But it has developed an infrastructure for widening its base and preaching its ideology in almost all areas of the Kashmir Valley. With a view to spreading its influence, the Jamaat, besides running a network of schools under a separate trust has been lately running a weekly Azhan, a daily Uqab and monthly Takbeer.16 In addition, it has been running several study circles in different parts of the valley which, as reported, are being financed from Arab countries through the medium of "Muslim Welfare Society. As reported, the Muslim Welfare Society receives huge petro-dollars from Arab countries in the name of spreading Islamic culture."17 The Jamaat has a significant following in the educational institutions. It, in fact, lays greater emphasis in indoctrinating the post-independence generation.

Next to Jamaat, the Umaat-e-Islamia of Qazi Nisar forms as a major group of the MUF. Though the MUF came to be dominated by the Jamaat-e-islami it was initially authored by Dr. Qazi Nisar. His Umaat, as reported, was mainly born out of the communal carnage of February, 1986. He, among other things, has been also enjoying the status of a "MirWaiz" of District Anant Nag since 1984. It is also believed that some top Congress(I) leaders, with the motive of weakening Dr. Farooq Abdullah and his National Conference, had projected Qazi Nissar as the real

193

defender of the faith and a true Muslim. During the 1983 assembly elections he, in fact, had helped the Congress party against the National Conference headed by Dr. Farooq Abdullah. As rightly observed "Qazi Nisar and Umaat-e-islamia were the creation of a faction of the Congress in kashmir18". But with the passage of time he emerged as a force to reckon with in the Anant Nag district. His group has been able to elicit sufficient following in this area. Interestingly, Anantnag has been a traditional stronghold of the Congress party but in the 1987 election the Congress candidate had failed to get even a fourth of the votes polled by the MUF candidate. The MUF candidate secured 24,800 out of the total number of 33,549 valid votes polled in the constituency whereas the score of the Congress(I) candidate remained as low as 8,095.

Maulana Abbas Ansari of the Ittehad was made the convener of the MUF. He happens to be a prominant Shia leader. The Shias in the state have been mostly loyal to the Congress Party in the past. This time in 1987 it so happened that no Shia candidate was allotted a Congress ticket. The spiritual head of the community and President of the Anjuman-i-Sharishian, Agha Syed Mustafa Alsafri, while criticising the Congress for denying the party ticket to Maulvi Iftikar (a Shia leader) said that it was a great shock to the community which in the past not only provided the Congress a platform which it needed badly but also paid heavily for openly supporting the Congress in the State especially the valley.19 However, in areas like Badgam the dominant faction of the Shia community has been also nearer the National Conference.

Maulvi Abbas Ansari is a religious leader and as a convener he had chosen to adopt a silent posture on the controversial issue of "Accession". In principle it was decided that the Front would neither speak in support nor oppose it. The Manifesto of the MUF also maintained this stand. It seems that the front instead of making the accession issue as central to its election compaign intended to moblise the Muslim masses in some indirect manner. While taking to the Press, Maulvi Abbas Anasri, for example, said: "We are interested in restoration of democratic rights to the people, both Muslims and non-Muslims living in the State. India that claims itself to be the biggest democracy of the world has deprived the people of this State of their democratic rights ever since 1947".20