In April GK carried a two-part article I wrote in defence of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah (SMA). I had expected that it would arouse interest in the facts of the political record of the one-time father figure and grand old man of modern Kashmir, replacing the factoids that have gone into making the Narrative that dictates present day perception about his life and achievements. The term factoid was coined by Norman Mailer in 1973 for unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.Â
I am told that the article was generally well received. A few readers even e-mailed their appreciation, and a sensitive one among them quoted from Orwell’s 1984- “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future”, an apposite observation in the context of the how the Narrative has distorted the historical record.
GK carried two articles refuting my views. One, byAjaz-ul-Haque who is a regular columnist for the paper, and the other morerecently, written jointly by two doctorates from Aligarh Muslim University,Mohammad Ashraf Khwaja and Javid Ahmad Ahanger. In this article I dealprimarily with the content of these two articles.
M/s Khwaja and Ahanger accuse me of ignoring the fact thatChaudhuri Ghulam Abbas had a considerable following among Muslims. According tothem it is outlandish to say that Sheikh Abdullah was a leader of Muslims, andthat such a claim is implausible. They theorize that the Freedom Strugglestarted in 1946 when National Conference called for an end to the autocraticrule of the Dogras, and not in 1989 as I postulated. They then go on to anarbitrary interpretation of what I said about Akbar, the Chaks, the Shahmirisand the Dogras, adding the gratuitous comment that Ashoka, was an outsider being from Bihar –Well, of course he was. Clearly, they have not understood the argument I wasmaking.
 The rest of theirarticle is just a quick rehash of the Narrative I criticized – that theSheikh’s legacy and leadership was disastrous for the people because of hisvacillating views from 1947 to 1975, and they accuse me of making emotionaljudgements about the Sheikh. How can I be emotional about SMA. I am neither a relationnor a Kashmiri.
Of course, Ghulam Abbas had a certain following, but he didjoin Sheikh Abdullah in setting up the National Conference, then left it andattached the re-established Muslim Conference to the Maharaja’s camp. GhulamAbbas wanted Pakistan not Azadi, and he was not a Kashmiri anyway. How does itmake the established fact of Sheikh Abdullah’s leadership implausible? The QuitKashmir call was for the Dogra dynasts to leave Kashmir, not a call for Azaadifrom India. In 1946 partition had not been finally decided on because Jinnahaccepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. Not once do the authors refer to any factsto back up their arguments. Their outlook is suffused with the spirit of thefalse Narrative. The article is too puerile to merit further comment.
Ajaz-ul-Haque’s piece is much better written and betterargued, though it suffers from the same basic problem – reliance on narrativenot facts.
Ajaz wrote, “If changing the matrix of your movement (fromMuslim to National ) to deceive your companions and please your masters, ifdisplaying faith on (the) pulpit to stoke a religious emotion and keepsecularism as a side pocket political belief, if watching the massacre ofMuslims with a cold criminal silence, if tailoring your slogans to suit Delhiin Delhi, Kashmiris in Kashmir, if first opting for India as conviction thenigniting plebiscite as passion, if dismissing the whole drama of resistance as’waywardness’ to ensure a berth first for yourself and then finally for yourprogeny, and finally if accepting a chief minister’s chair after being deposedand disrobed as a prime minister signifies legendary I join B R Singh and callSheikh a legend. But if integrity, courage, sacrifice, truthfulness and trusthave some value then the story is disgracefully different.”
 These are gravecharges, and would condemn the Sheikh if they were true, but they are not, nordoes the rhetorical manner of presenting them add to their credibility. Tobegin, how does Ajaz-ul-Haque assume that SMA was deceiving his companions. Wasit not a joint decision to convert the Muslim Conference into the NationalConference? On what basis does Ajaz assume that it was done to please hismasters? When and how did Nehru become his master? This is prejudice at work,not factual analysis.
More astounding is the contradiction Ajaz sees in SMA’sreligious belief and his secularism. There are some that see the two ascontradictory, particularly among followers of the Jamaat e Islami, but themajority are perfectly able to reconcile their faith with secular beliefs. SMAwas not stoking religious passion when he fought for the rights of Muslims, hewas merely articulating the demands of the community he belonged to, and whoseaspirations he was fighting for. Justice for Muslims did not exclude the beliefin justice for all.
Nor was SMA silent about the massacres of Muslims in Jammu.He complained to Nehru that the Prime Minister, Mehr Chand Mahajan was communaland complicit in the massacres, which is why Mahajan was removed and replacedagainst the wishes of the Maharaja. The Jammu massacres were an extension ofthe killings in Punjab. Hindus and Sikhs were massacred in Mirpur, Bagh tehsilleading to their exodus to Poonch and Jammu, and Muslims were massacred inJammu and Kathua. At the time SMA was not Prime Minister and had only just beenappointed Head of the Emergency Administration in Kashmir.
Ajaz-ul-Haque gives no examples of SMA tailoring slogans tosuit Delhi in Delhi and Kashmiris in Kashmir. In October 1947 soon after hisrelease from jail, SMA was visiting Delhi. At a press conference he wasquestioned about J&K’s accession to India. He avoided making a specificcommitment, saying he would have to ascertain the views of his people. InKashmir he was very specific in his opposition to Pakistan. This was hardly thebehaviour that Ajaz accuses him of. SMA’s preference for India was borne ofconviction, his shift to the plebiscite platform grew out of disenchantmentwith the way he was treated, and he eventually reconciled with Delhi becausethere was no sensible alternative. It is simply unfair to say that thereconciliation was to gain office. That office had been lured under his nosecontinuously for 20 years prior and been disdainfully rejected.
The same lack of understanding is evident when Ajazcriticizes SMA for accepting the designation of Chief Minister when he had beenPrime Minister before. It is an unwarranted comparison. Before 1947 manyMaharajas had Diwans and Prime Ministers. Even Indian Provinces like Punjab andBengal were ruled by Premiers, which is the alternative term for PrimeMinister. It was not exclusive to J&K. The designation was changed to ChiefMinister everywhere in India and Pakistan after independence. It is not as ifPakistan would have allowed the office of Prime Minister J&K to continue ifthe State had acceded to that country. SMA tried to have the designationrestored but Mrs. Gandhi would have none of it. Contrary to what Ajaz says itwas the courage and integrity of the Sheikh that enabled him to wage such along battle in the face of such overwhelming odds.
Ajaz insists that the seeds of violence in Kashmir were sownby the Sheikh. He concludes that SMA is ‘the sole soul responsible for the hellwe are in”. This is factually inaccurate. It was Maharaja Hari Singh whoacceded to India and it was Jinnah who insisted he alone had the right todecide. With or without Sheikh Abdulla J&K was destined to join India. IfAjaz means that the present violence is a consequence of accession to Indiathen Hari Singh and Jinnah are to blame, not the Sheikh.
 Ajaz goes on to drawsupport from Thomas Paine, justifying secession when a nation is denied itsnatural right. I am not sure to which right Ajaz was referring. If he meansKashmir’s right to join Pakistan then the blame must fall on Hari Singh andJinnah. If, on the other hand he was talking about the electoral fraud of 1987,or the illegal dismissal of the NC government by Jagmohan in 1984 then I mustremind him that, by then, SMA was long dead. About the natural right to Azaadi,much can be said, but it is not the subject of this article.
 Ajaz accuses SMA ofcommitting fraud, without specifying what that fraud was. It is an example ofthe vicious grip that factoids have on public memory. The Sheikh’s ‘fraud’seems to be that he eventually gave up the notion of independence he adopted following on the Maharaja, and thathe reconciled to a weaker version of the autonomy that the Maharaja hadobtained, and he himself was responsible for enshrining in the Constitution. Ifit had been such a fraud Kashmiris would not have voted him back in 1977 withsuch record numbers. No doubt Narrativists would be happier if SMA had gone tohis grave without compromising. Would that have prevented the current situationfrom developing?Â
 Narrativists live ina make-believe world oblivious of the disastrous consequences of policies theso-called resistance (itself a misnomer) pursues. With Modi’s re-electionprospects for Kashmir are even gloomier than they were. One can only pray thatbetter sense prevails in Delhi which like the Narrativists is able to ignorefacts and base its policy on factoids – to quote Orwell again, the “veryconcept of objective truth is fading out of the world”.