October 27 was the day when Jammu and Kashmir acceded to the Indian Union in 1947. The sixtieth anniversary of the day was observed, in Jammu as a day of celebration and in Kashmir as a complete hartal underlying again the extent of differences between the popular moods in the two principal regions the state. These differences provide a vital clue to the developments and complications in the state since pre-independence days.

The initiative for converting the state Muslim conference into the National Conference was taken by two leaders of Jammu, Mahatma Budh Singh and Chaudhary Ghulam Ahmad Abbas. They were together in Reasi jail where they developed a close friendship.

Both went to Srinagar to persuade Shiekh Abdullah to make a secular all state political party. While the Sheikh accepted the advice, it was subject to a gentleman agreement that the leadership of the National Conference would rotate between the two regions every year.

Somehow, Sheikh Abdullah did not honour the agreement and the leaders of the two regions parted company. As the national leadership of the Congress was not willing to accommodate any rival to the Sheikh, the leaders of the Jammu region sought the patronage of the Muslim League and the Hindu Maha Sabha, and formed local branches of the Muslim Conference and Jammu and Kashmir Rajya Hindu Sabha.

When the National Conference launched the Quit Kashmir movement in 1946 demanding termination of the monarchy with the slogan of “Dogra Raj Murdabad,” it had a negative reaction in the Jammu region where Dogras were the predominant community.

Opposing the Quit Kashmir movement, Choudhary Hameedullah, acting president of the Jammu Muslim Conference said, “We have never lacked in showing loyalty and respect for the Maharaja and it is because of this attachment that we did not support the Quit Kashmir Movement.”

Both the Hindu Sabha and the Muslim Conference supported the Maharaja’s desire for independence when the Partition plan was announced. Hameedullah argued, “Accession to Pakistan will disturb Hindus and accession to India will disturb Muslims.

Therefore, we have decided not to enter into any controversy either with India or Pakistan. The second thing we have decided is that we should try to acquire independence for the state. The third question before us is what would be the position of the Maharaja, which could only be secure in an independent state”.

The same Hindu leadership that had supported independence of the state opposed its autonomy under Article 370 of the Indian constitution which guaranteed it. It was now organised under the banner of Praja Parishad, which became an affiliate of the Bhartiya Jana Sangh. The motive both times was the same distrust of the leaders of the Kashmir region.

After transfer of power from the Jammu based Maharaja to the Kashmir based leaders, they opposed what they called “Kashmiri Raj” domination as before 1947, Kashmiris opposed what they called “Dogra Raj”. And the best way to get rid of “Kashmiri Raj”, they thought, was to erode autonomy of the state.

The polarisation in the two regions around slogans of full accession and limited accession made the very issue of accession in dispute. The chain of events were one of the major factors responsible for dismissal from power of Sheikh Abdullah and his long detention.

Even after the rise of secessionist forces in Kashmir, differences between Kashmir leaders and the leaders of the Pak administered state re-emerged. Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, which initiated the militant movement, was soon split into two groups led by Kashmiri speaking Yasin Malik and PoK leader Amanullah.

When Hurriyat leaders visited PoK, across the LoC on the invitation of the Pakistan government in 2005, Sikandar Hayat Khan, the then Prime Minister of PoK challenged their claim to represent the Indian side of the state as not a single person form Jammu region was with them.

When the Poonch-Rawalakote bus route was opened last year, his son Farooq Hayat came upto the LoC and openly said in the presence of the media that there was no use opening the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road as there were not many Kashmiris in this part of the state. He demanded opening of more roads on LoC in Jammu region as most of the divided families lived there.

An eloquent lesson from the facts stated above is that Jammu and Kashmir is not a problem of Hindu-Muslim relations as many people believe and religion is not the only basis of identity. Bonds of language, culture, region and ethnicity in certain circumstances, proved stronger than those of religion.

Thus Kashmiri Muslims are as much Muslims as Kashmiris and Muslims of Jammu mostly belong to Pahrai, Gujar and Dogra communities who belong to the same family of languages.

How regional factors matter was evident when the Congress swept the polls in 2002 assembly election when it projected its Muslim leader Ghulam Nabi Azad as the future Chief Minister, conceding only one seat to the BJP out of 37 constituencies.

The above mentioned developments have taken place despite official policies which still consider Kashmir as a Muslim region, Jammu as a Hindu and Ladakh as a Buddhist region and have so far ignored not only substational minorities (35 per cent Muslims in Jammu and 48 per cent Muslims in Ladakh) but also regional and cultural identities which have shown their vitality and  potentiality for laying foundations of a secular state of Jammu and Kashmir.

(The writer is Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir affairs,
Jammu.)