The Triumphant Trinity: A Statecraft That Can Reinvent Kashmir

The Amarnath Yatra fiasco demonstrates that the Indian political establishment is struggling to not only construct a way forward on Kashmir, but also how to message it. The Kashmiriyat nostrum evoked derisive howls from a skeptical public and need to be retired. The pity is that Kashmir itself offers both a diagnosis of what ails Kashmir and more importantly a time-tested panacea. India has been unable to leverage its wisdom because of self-imposed secular eye patches which have shut out frontal engagement about religion, tolerance, law and order and politics. India no longer has religions politik left within its statecraft beyond the short term, base, sectarian behaviour of political opportunists.

For a country, with India’s diversity, to have such an omission and wing it or more appropriately, careen from one holy crisis to another is a fatal weakness. All that the state is left with, in confronting existential challenges, is a ham-handed application of military force. The end of militancy ala the Khalistan model is proclaimed as the holy grail of the Indian state matched only by the azadi refrain of the militants.

To begin, by now, the state should have accumulated enough data on the terrorists in Kashmir, that it has terminated to date and ones that it has on its scanner, to be able to lay out precisely for the public what a typical militant’s cradle to grave journey is. We know that half are from Pakistan, but the other half is indigenous and is growing. One thesis lies in the accelerating radicalisation that has been wrought in Kashmir in the last 30 years, led by the construction of 1,000 new mosques, under the Al Hadith banner. Their Wahabi followers are now estimated to be up to a million. Money has poured in copiously and resulted in highly visible Mcmosques manned by fiery mullahs. The last time that such an influx happened was in the reign of Sikandar Shah (1389-1413 AD). Jonaraja, the medieaval historian, writes:

Sikandar’s destructive actions ultimately led him to getting the title of Butshikan (Iconoclast) from the Persian chroniclers. His spirit’s reach extends till today, where the centre that he founded was where police officer Mohammed Ayub Pandith was lynched by a mob and every bone in his body was broken.

On a happier note, the foundational learning for a new political construct lies in examining the lives and actions of Kota Rani (~1300 – 1339 AD) who preceded Sikandar and Zayn-ul-Abidin (1420 - 1470 AD), the son of Sikandar. Both faced challenges that are very relevant to the contemporary situation in Kashmir. While any chronicler is charged with the biased task of building the body of fame for his master and Jonaraja describes Zayn-ul-Abidin as having achieved the impossible for rulers, past or future; the fact that he is referred to in popular discourse as Budshah, the Great King, is a validation of his generous claim. To Budshah goes the credit of achieving an impossible political turnaround from Sharia domination to an inclusive society.

Even more poignant is the relatively unknown Kota Rani, the Last Queen of Kashmir, a Budshahi and arguably among the greatest queens of India. It was on 17 July 1339 when she was murdered (suicide) that Hindu rule in Kashmir ended and the Islamic rule began. Much like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to Kota Rani goes the credit for seeking to protect and preserve the inclusive, tolerant civilisation that she was sovereign of, while accommodating (opportunistic) refugees and also personally confronting jihadi invaders from the West. After all, it was in Kashmir that Pandit Vishnu Sharma, author of Panchatantra, popularised the idea of vasudeva kutumbakam (the world is one family).

Before one examines the actions of these two bookend monarchs, it is important to know that their decisions did not occur in a cultural vacuum. Kashmir had the distinction of having had an extraordinary philosopher, religionspolitik scholar and royal advisor to King Sankaravarman (883-902 AD) by the name of Jayanta Bhatta. As a practitioner of statecraft, Jayanta was very concerned about the power of religious orthodoxy to repress ‘heretical’ groups and influence the sovereign (state). He was the author of the play Agamadambara (Much Ado about Religion). One would assume that the satirical, didactic play, combining entertainment and argument would rival today’s TV debates and was written to shape hearts and minds of the formations within the Kashmiri society whose stability he was responsible for. In recent times, with religious tolerance under increasing assault, Jayanta’s timeless works are eliciting increasing Western interest and importance as scholars seek greater understanding on a knotty subject that has globally eluded resolution. He is perhaps India’s greatest authority about state tolerance policies and society practices.

Jayanta’s inclusiveness maintains the intrinsic validity of all sacred texts; contradictions, processes and rituals notwithstanding. As a theist, he maintained the emanation of sacred knowledge of all creeds as coming from a single source. Each religion can make a valid claim to revealed or experienced truth, “Provided it has a widely acknowledged, unbroken tradition, provided the noble people are not repulsed by associating with it or discussing it, provided its accepted practice is neither antisocial nor dangerous, provided it has not just recently sprung into being, provided it is not based upon the ramblings of a madman, nor on something outlandish, nor simply on something like greed: for such scriptures this method of validation is applicable, but it cannot be used for just any text.” Jayanta thus highlights the shortcomings of both the exclusivist camp as also the pluralist camp. He removes the hegemonic aspect of the former without the dumbing down of the latter.

The limits of toleration for Jayanta are determined by social stability and security. The practical quid pro quo is that in exchange for their cooperation in the security of the kingdom, the king allows a multitude of competing religious groups to exist in social harmony. I have therefore advanced the thesis that for Kashmir the operating model of tolerance is not about agreement or coexistence, but earned esteem. The native word for this was and is Lihaaz, a dynamic relationship with teeth, as opposed to an unconditional, constitution input derived, rights based tolerance. Thus, social acceptance and its opposite, ostracism, were the highest punishment. In the extremum, those criminal false ascetics who devastate the established social and religious order (prastutadharmaviplavakṛta) – if they did not leave immediately, the king would strike them like thieves. The case of Zakir Naik comes to mind as a contemporary example.

To sharpen the contrast between Kashmiriyat and Lihaaz, the former stresses commonality of inputs such as blood lines, shared cultural practices, interdependence. Suha Bhatt who was a key villain in Butshikan’s reign is the poster child of why Kashmiriyat is an unreliable framework when one is faced with ideological conversion. Lihaaz measures output civic behaviour and has accountability. It is real time karma. Accumulate merit points and society rewards you, the opposite is equally true.

Jayanta would be especially critical of both morality (Sharia) and materialistic (development) frameworks, which are currently competing in Kashmir as a vision for a stable and sustainable society. The weakness of morality is that it is based on values which are specific to a system and hence cannot have absolute value. Since it is not amenable to sense perceptions or other objective knowledge instruments, it cannot be universal. It can only be fear-based and derived from authority. Eventually, the diversion of capital necessary for enforcement leads to the collapse of the society. Similarly, no duty has been prescribed by the materialistic system. In a society governed by hedonistic impulses, there can be no concern with justice, or at least, no reason for the king to be concerned with it. If the king is not concerned with justice, his particular function becomes unnecessary, and society suffers due to a lack of transparency, trust and eventually stability.

One can see that already the credibility of the State in Kashmir is eroding and while its antagonist is perceived as far worse off, the loss of justice as a cornerstone of State policy is a key foundational weakness in regaining the hearts and minds at play. After all, without justice what separates dharma from adharma? Today, the Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists of Kashmir all suffer deep anguish from a lack of justice and without justice to establish law and order is a pipe dream. Yes, in a war zone military justice will have to be separated by necessity, but one can completely accelerate justice in civilian life and for noncombatants such as the Pandits and the Muslim widows and orphans.

I will now share examples of how Jayanta’s battle tested formulation was executed by Zain-ul-Abidin with remarkable success. Remember, he had inherited an Islamist holocaust. His start, around 1422 AD, was not auspicious and, in fact, he will forever bear the black mark for being the person who shattered the murti (idol) of Sharada Devi, the titular ruler of Kashmir, into pieces. The historian describes:

However, a medical miracle by a Hindu physician, Sirya Bhatta, in curing a malignant boil had led him to offer riches in full accordance with Sirya’s wishes. Sirya had refused them like a self-restrained ascetic abstains from a beautiful woman. Budshah promoted Sirya on his return to the post of chief justice and this had far reaching favourable consequences for his tolerant rule. Sirya visibly and completely overhauled the draconian judicial system. With justice firmly entrenched and the appointment of the Buddhist Tilakacharya and the chief auditor Simha as advisors, the appointments of the bureaucracy became a completely merit-based one.

This author has separately argued that the State should institute an early retirement programme for the bloated bureaucracy, and for each public rupee released, invest in a partnership with the youth in venture and job creation programmes. 6 Most importantly, he recalled the liberal Maulana Kabir, who had educated him, from Herat and made him the principal of a prestigious school in Noushahra. It was only after Budshah had these three governance pillars in place that he embarked upon the largest infrastructure improvement programme that Kashmir has known. The approach of the Indian State, by contrast, has put the cart before the horse. This has not worked for 70 years!

I mention two test cases of dynamic Lihaaz with teeth. Even though Budshah was a devout Muslim, supported them to the maximum, it was brought to his notice that an issue had arisen regarding a tirtha on the junction of the Mar canal and the river Jhelum in Srinagar which was used as a cremation site by the Hindus. A tax had been imposed during Sikander’s time on all cremations! Budshah ordered its abrogation but the hardcore Muslims led by Sayyid Makk opposed the relaxation measure. Budshah kicked the Sayyid out of the kingdom! Compare him with the mollycoddling of present day Sayyid leaders who get away with far worse.

But what really stands out is the episode of Salaudin, a mullah, who had come to the kingdom from Mecca, armed with the Koran. Salaudin was boastful of his merits and the emperor attracted by virtuous people would go visit him every day which was a remarkable honour for a mere commoner. Pretty soon, the emperor figured out that the Muslim mendicant was as empty as a drum but he did not withdraw his favours. It was at this point that the queen went into labour. An esteemed yogi sat in samadhi nearby and reputedly it was only through his blessings that a son was born. For nine days, the yogi had remained without food and water. Salaudin drunk with alcohol and in a burst of envy and hatred killed the yogi with arrows and scimitar. Given all the witnesses there was no option but to impose the death sentence on the mullah. On the very day, his first son was born, the sultan, while abstaining from bathing, eating, talking and from all activity, agonised that he would have to give an inauspicious death sentence to a one-time preceptor.

When he emerged from his despondency he passed his judgement I quote the chronicler exactly:

Budshah was Muslim to the max, yet he permitted virtually all of the neo converts to revert to Hinduism. He ruled with the tough love that is Lihaaz for Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, women and temples alike. He first took firm control of the levers of persuasion and then when needed compulsion. Kota Rani was even stronger. Described as ever captivating but never captive she had seven men who were her serial suitors of whom four (Shaivite, Buddhist, Muslim, convert) ‘married’ her for good or bad. She is proof positive that in Kashmir the umbrella of Lihaaz would permit any religious/political alliance, even with murderers, if it served the public. Her key learning after two major military attacks was that Kashmir is the front-line state in a long war.

The Indian experience with terrorism from the West goes way, way back into history. To ensure that we remained ever vigilant to this danger, our wise ancestors, placed an implant in us. Intrinsic to all Kashmiri Hindus was the daily ritual of offering a thanksgiving prayer prior to eating a meal. The last step in the short ritual is to recite the mantra - Atankahinam Jagadastu Sarvam (may the whole world be free from terror)! But ultimately it is not the external bleeding that will kill you, it is the internal - hence the need for an eternal state of heightened vigilance. Kota suffered a lot more challenges than the Indian State does today and yet she managed to hold her kingdom together and progress the people, including building the bypass canal to save Srinagar from floods!

There is a lot more to Kota that is worth a separate read, but her battle cry, “We were, we will be’ should suffice to describe the indomitable spirit of the civilisation that she sought to uphold. Her life history has enormous relevance to the fault lines that are testing India today, but more details here would expand this missive to an unacceptable length. Kashmiriyat is dead, Long Live Lihaaz. Where bonding is earned because of civic behaviour and not entitlement or diktat or pseudo constructs; where there is the non-dual tough love of Lihaaz and not the fake love of Kashmiriyat. It is the only proven religionspolitik principle for nation-rebuilding in Kashmir. It is a strategic, political narrative backed up with detailed, carefully sequenced actions on the ground that are rooted in the winning Trinity of Budshah, Kota and Jayanta, each a tower of strength. It therefore represents the winning engagement plan for Kashmir. It has cultural authenticity, it respects the sense and sensibility of the people and will not be main land India hegemonic. Kashmiris intuitively understand the reward and punishment incentives in it. It is a paradigm shift which will remake the state and State of Kashmir. Now it just needs informed men or a (wo)man of will to do it.