Connect with us


Unmasking Kashmir: An outsider’s revenge



A memoir by a former IAS officer normally has fewer reasons to be contentious. But there is every reason for it to be so if the bureaucrat happens to have been posted in Kashmir and the memoir touches upon a range of sensitive
issues which also have fraught political overtones. ‘Unmasking Kashmir’ by retired IAS officer Sonali Kumar is one such memoir.

The 256 page book is a top “outsider” bureaucrat’s account of Kashmir, the first of its nature. Another first to its credit is that Kumar is a woman and she has something to say about alleged gender discrimination in the state too.
But her general sounding revelations about harassment of women pale in comparison to her account of how the state treats its bureaucrats from other parts of India. This has become a subject of bitter debate in the state.

Though the account talks about the unique problems faced by ‘outsider’ IAS officers, it invariably runs up against the fraught political and historical questions which make the state so extraordinarily troubled in the first place.

Kumar laments that IAS officers from outside the state “can’t buy property, can’t educate her children in any technical — medical or engineering college, can’t get her spouse or children to find employment with the State Government, can neither vote in nor stand for any state-level elections even after retirement, can’t even get her son married to a local girl because that will immediately extinguish that girl’s state-subject status,” and so on.

She blames the law passed by the Maharaja of J&K in 1927 for this. But in the state this law is directly connected to Article 35A, the constitutional provision extended to the state by the President of India in 1954 which enables the state government to define state subjects and forbid outsiders from settling in the state. This law currently faces a tough challenge in the Supreme Court.

“The law (in 1927) was enacted by Maharaja’s Hindu advisors primarily to keep other Hindus of India out of J&K,’ writes Kumar. “And the same law is now coming in handy for Kashmiri Muslims to keep everyone else out!”.

But in Kashmir Kumar’s grouse hits a raw nerve. It is seen less as a former IAS officer’s account of her personal experience or that of her tribe and more as yet another voice in support of the perceived effort to dilute the state’s special constitutional position guaranteed under Article 370. In popular perception such a dilution is understood as a thinly-veiled design to alter the state’s demography.

In Kumar’s narration, however, there are hardly any nods to this inherent complicacy of the situation. On the contrary, she chooses to foreground an outsider IAS officer’s predicament in the state, to the point of either trivializing the overarching political issues facing the state or treating them as secondary to
her plight.

The book shows Kumar invariably bitter about her thirty-six-and-a-half years of service in Kashmir. But it is the ‘us-versus-them’ trope underpinning her telling that is deeply troubling; it is simplistic in that it evacuates the situation in the state of its political and historical context. Kumar gratuitously sets herself up as a defender of India’s integrity against anti-national Kashmiris. This approach ironically brackets even those who are part of the establishment with the separatists, one of them a former Chief Secretary of the state who is said to have been hosting Hurriyat leaders at his home and as a result forced to resign.

She largely sees the struggle in Kashmir aroused by the hate against New Delhi, pure and simple, and not necessarily deriving from any historical wrongs. Her narrative on the state doesn’t even distantly acknowledge the possible case of a genuine grievance in Kashmir, a serious omission that makes the memoir a witting or unwitting part of the vilification campaign launched against the state by sections of national media, particularly by some television channels. The omission also makes the book a part of the dominant ideological narrative on the state in India today.

“What I represented, which in my Sari and Bindi attire meant “Indianness,” she writes. And this ‘Indianness’, she facilely concludes, makes her an “outsider” in J&K. In fact, the theme of an outsider runs through the narrative.
“But what about the curses of that “outsider” to J&K? Are you sure the present problems are only communal, i.e. how can the Muslims in J&K live with a Hindu India? Or instigated by Pakistan? Or because of the Kashmiri’s genuine desire to separate from India?,” Kumar questions.

She continues at another place: “My heart sank when I heard the word outsider for the first time. How could I be an outsider in my own country? I was an Indian first and then anything else. Little did I realise then that the entire Kashmir problem was because of the apartheid regime that existed. That regime which divided humanity into two: insiders and outsiders”.

Observations like these have elicited hostile reactions in Kashmir. The reviews in local newspapers and comments in social media have been trenchantly critical of Kumar. “Apparently, the idea is to add to the narrative that rightwing parties have developed in last few years within and outside the courtrooms. It is demography in question and the quest for larger integration that is talked about,” writes noted Kashmiri journalist and editor Masood Hussain in his review of the book.

Another review written by one Shama Jahangir was titled ‘Unmasking Kashmir unmasks Sonali’. Similarly, former bureaucrat Irfan Yasin in his Facebook post recalls Kumar as “an arrogant and self-centred person with a false sense of superiority”.

“She never tried to identify with the state or its problems and has been part of these insider outsider presumed sentiments to the extent of being stupid,” Yasin writes.

One of the interesting anecdotes that Kumar reveals in her book and which has earned it attention in media is about her removal from the post of principal resident commissioner J&K House, New Delhi, for allegedly not serving biryani to a visiting delegation. That might be so but biryani is not the food of Muslims of Kashmir as Kumar seems to suggest and gain sympathy as a consequence. Kashmiri Muslim’s favourite dish is rather Wazwan.
Nor is Secretariat two kilometres from Batamaloo. Or the Secretariat four kilometres from Nedous hotel. This is the distance she claims to have been walking (“yes walking”, to borrow her phrase) during her early days of posting to the state. Both distances are less than half a kilometre.

There are many other details which are factually incorrect: For example, one of the Chief Ministers of Kashmir, according to her, was Ghulam Shah when it was Ghulam Mohammad Shah. Or when she writes that bureaucrat B R Kundal resigned as Chief Secretary and became a minister which is also incorrect. At a time when associating biryani with people whose traditional food is not biryani can gain you easy media attention and some public praise to boot, you can afford to be careless with even basic details about the state where you have spent 37 years of your career.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Why BJP pulled the plug in Jammu and Kashmir



1. Both PDP and BJP were looking for an exit to shore up credentials among respective constituencies. BJP moved pre-emptively to seize political high ground.
2. Gulf between the partners had widened. Disagreements rose over security strategy after Burhan Wani’s killing. PDP wanted a softer approach towards stone-pelters + and militants, mindful of massive resentment in Valley.

PDP loses partner, and its support base
3. Mehbooba Mufti’s moves mollifying her supporters in the Valley by raising the ante on Kathua gang rape and Army/security forces’ operations further annoyed BJP’s constituency.
4. BJP went along with PDP’s demand for a ceasefire during Ramzan + . This was not reciprocated by Pakistan-backed terror groups or separatists, and dented BJP’s image nationally.

Continue Reading


Governor’s rule imposed in J&K



Jammu and Kashmir was today placed under Governor’s rule for the fourth time in the last one decade after the BJP withdrew support to its alliance partner PDP, prompting Mehbooba Mufti to resign as the chief minister.

A Home Ministry spokesman said “the President has approved imposition of Governor’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir with immediate effect.”

The political developments of Jammu and Kashmir continued to dominate the night as President Ram Nath Kovind was in mid air when governor N N Vohra sent his report to the Rashtrapati Bhavan.

The details of the Governor’s report were immediately sent to Suriname where the president was scheduled to land at 6.30 PM (3 AM IST) on his maiden visit.

“After concluding his consultations with all the major political parties, the Governor has forwarded his report to the President for imposition of Governor’s rule under Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir,” a Raj Bhavan spokesperson said last night in Srinagar.

The president after pursuing the report gave his assent and the same was sent to the Union Home Ministry by 6 AM IST following which a process of promulgating Governor’s rule was prepared and sent to Srinagar.

This is the eighth time

in last four decades that the state has been put under Governor’s rule and fourth during the tenure of Vohra since 2008.

The BJP stunned Mehbooba Mufti last afternoon after they pulled out of the over three-year-old ruling coalition with the PDP in the state and called for Governor’s rule.

BJP national general secretary Ram Madhav made this announcement that the party was withdrawing support to the coalition government which had been wracked by bitter political feuds and worsening security challenges.

“It has become untenable for the BJP to continue in the alliance government in Jammu and Kashmir,” Madhav had said yesterday.

Governor’s rule was imposed in the state for the first time during the tenure of Vohra for 174 days after the PDP withdrew support to Ghulam Nabi Azad-led Congress-PDP coalition government in 2008.

The PDP withdrew support to the government on June 28, 2008 following widespread protests during the Amarnath land row agitation that pitted Hindu-dominated Jammu region against the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley.

The central rule came to an end on January 5, 2009 after National Conference leader Omar Abdullah was sworn in as the youngest chief minister of the state.

Governor’s rule was imposed in the state for the second time during his tenure after the assembly election results on December 23, 2014 threw up a hung assembly with no party or combination of parties able to stake claim for government formation and Omar Abdullah, the caretaker chief minister, asking to be relieved from the duties with immediate effect on January 7.

The central rule ended after the PDP and the BJP stitched an alliance paving the way for the return of Mufti Sayeed as chief minister on March 1, 2015.

Last time the state was put under the central rule on January 8, 2016 after allies– the PDP and the BJP– deferred the government formation process following the death of Mufti Sayeed. It came to an end after Mehbooba Mufti was sworn in as the chief minister on April 4, 2016.

Continue Reading


Centre may appoint new J&K governor after Amarnath yatra



Jammu : Former deputy chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir Kavinder Gupta on Wednesday said the Centre may appoint a new Governor in the state after the Amarnath yatra.
Speaking to ANI, Gupta said, “It’s a routine matter (appointing new Governor). The Central Government will see to it. The decision on this might be taken after Amarnath Yatra.”
The yatra, which starts on June 28, will continue for two months.
Currently, N N Vohra, who was appointed as a governor in the state in June 2008 and was given a fresh term in 2013, is among the few governors appointed by the UPA government to have continued in his position in the BJP-led NDA dispensation.
Gupta further stated that no new government will be formed anytime soon in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is working on something in connection with the ongoing issue in Jammu and Kashmir, the former deputy chief minister added.
“I don’t think a new government will be formed anytime soon. Uncertainties are there, but we are working on something and people will get to know about it,” he said.
Earlier in the day, President Ram Nath Kovind approved the imposition of Governor’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir, with an immediate effect.
Yesterday, Governor Narinder Nath Vohra forwarded his report to the President of India for the imposition of Governor’s Rule under Section 92 of the Constitution.
This came after Mehbooba Mufti resigned as Jammu and Kashmir’s Chief Minister following the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) exit from its alliance with the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the state.
Mufti said that the basic motive of the alliance was “reconciliation, dialogue with the people of Kashmir, promoting confidence-building measures and good relationships with Pakistan.”
The BJP’s decision apparently came after its chief Amit Shah held a meeting with the party’s Jammu and Kashmir cabinet ministers.
Citing examples of the growing acts of “terrorism, violence and radicalisation” in the state over the past few years, BJP General Secretary Ram Madhav, while addressing a press conference in the national capital, said that the party was left with no other option, but to discontinue its alliance with the PDP.
The BJP and PDP formed a coalition government in 2015 after the state elections threw up a hung assembly. However, both of them were ideologically divided on a variety of issues.
The BJP had 25 seats in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, while the PDP had 28.
This will be the fourth time in the last 10 years that a Governor’s rule is imposed in Jammu and Kashmir. (ANI)

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2016-2017 Jammu Voice Powered By TR Technology Solutions Shared by Themes24x7