Dialogue July-September 2008, Volume 10 No. 1
Mediaeval
Kashmir
Historiography
K.N. Pandit*
The
Calendar
What is the
precise historical time to reckon as the beginning of mediaeval period? Scholars
have hotly debated the subject. Western historians say that modern age dawned
(in the west) with the advent of industrial revolution around A. D. 1688. Others
believe that Renaissance of the early 16th century
ushered in a new era, since it marked the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning
of the enlightenment.
But Muslim historians do not accept any of these formulations. According
to them the period of enlightenment began when the Prophet brought a new faith
and along with that a different approach to material and spiritual life. The
Muslim calendar begins from Muharram 1, A.H. 1 corresponding to 16 July 622
A.D., and the day on which Prophet Muhammad left
Mecca
and proceeded to
Medina
on the invitation of seventy-five inhabitants of Yathrib. His departure is
known as hijrat, an Arabic word meaning “migration”. Hence the Muslim
hijri calendar, and Muslim historians have used only this calendar.
The Muslim Calendar is a religious calendar, and based on movement in the
position of Moon. It is related that while reciting the khutba, or Sermon
at his Farewell Pilgrimage, Prophet Muhammad said: “A year is twelve months,
as at the time of Creation.”1 The
Qur’an says: “Verily twelve months is the number of the months with
God, according to God’s Book, ever since the day when He created Heaven and
Earth.” 2
Muslim historians of mediaeval and even of later mediaeval times have
invariably used the hijra lunar calendar for recording events in their
works. However, Iranian historians of later period have used hijri (solar)
calendar, and this means variation in dates. Iranians/Shia’s call it hijri
shamsi while the Sunnis call their calendar hijri qamari.
Muslim
Historiography
Muslim contribution to the science of historiography is appreciable
in terms of quality as well as quantity. Credit goes to the depth and vastness
of Arabic language, which generally facilitated writing with elegance and
without too many ambiguities. Moreover, early Arab conquests opened a vast new
world for Arabs, warriors, traders, and adventurers. The new world had much to
offer to the historians: not only the flora and fauna of the conquered countries
but also their life style, and social structure.
There was at hand a rich fund for comparative study. Fortunately, the
Arab historians have left to us some significant material that deals with
pre-Islamic civilizations, too, be it of the Aryan or the Semitic or the
Mongolian race. Had they not done so, we would have been deprived of
considerable portion of ancient history of the people in the East.3
The Saracens had a fairly developed sense of history. Supported by a
language that contained rich vocabulary and powerful syntax, and also taking cue
from the powerful Qur’anic text, early Arab historians evinced great
interest in the events of their day.
In the beginning, Arab historians liked writing biographies (siyar)
or what may now be called biographical histories. But when gradually their
conquered lands took political shape and structure, and Islamic society moved
towards cohesion of sorts, having spread over vast regions of Asia Minor,
Mesopotamia
,
Iran
, and
Central Asia
, Arab historians found new material and new subject matter to deal with.
Civilization, society, agriculture, trade, architecture, arts, economy, land
settlement, science of warfare, administration, inter-group relations etc. were
some of the new themes in which they evinced keen interest.
In the Prolegomena to his great work, Ibn Khaldun has adequately
dealt with this subject.4
Arab invaders finally overthrew the Sassanian Empire of Persia (
Iran
) around A.D. 652. With this the
Zoroastrian faith — the faith of the Sassanian Iran — gave way to Islam, the
new faith brought by the invaders from
Arabia
. Thus began a long process of replacing a grand old civilization of Achaemenian
and Sassanian era,—5 the civilization of
fire-worshippers —— to the youthful Islamic civilization of very recent
origin. Among other things, the
Arabs brought with them their language and literary traditions to the newly
conquered lands among which Iran was a very fertile ground for Arabic traditions
to flourish, of course, notwithstanding numerous anti-Arab movements, some of
them very violent, that shaped in Islamic Iran during the early days of the
Umayyid and Abbasid caliphates.6
Pre-Islamic
Iran
may boast of having produced some works of history.7 But
the fact is that most of these works, which escaped the onslaught of time, are
about the doxological and mythical lore of ancient
Iran
. Only scant historical content of cohesive nature is deducible from these
works, which, in no wise, are comparable to the post-Islamic works, which have a
fairly deep and wide-ranging subject matter. Nevertheless, we are thankful to
the Parsi ecclesiasts (dasturs) of
Bombay
, who have painstakingly preserved to us the remnants of their liturgical fund.8
When Arab domination of
Iran
became pervasive, Arabic language made deep inroads into Iranian life and
culture. Arab Governors in
Iran
, supported by local warlords and satraps, lavishly patronized promulgation of
Arabic language and culture in
Iran
, and
Central Asia
in particular, owing to ethnic diversity in these regions. Poets, writers,
intellectuals and men of letters needed court patronage to flourish, and since
Arabic was now the language of culture, they vied with one another in claiming
superior linguistic and rhetorical skills in that language. This was true in the
case of almost all genres of literature, including historiography. Thus a model
was set before the Iranian historiographers, which would, in due course of time,
extend to such lands in the east as came under Islamic Iranian sphere of
influence.
Kashmir
was one such region.
In the beginning, Iranian historiographers employed a simple and plain
style of Farsi prose for the simple reason that they wrote for ordinary readers.
Bal’ami’s Farsi translation of Tarikh-i-Baihaqi is an example of this
style.
However, this did not last long. When Khurasan, the eastern part of the
Caliphate, assumed more and more autonomy from
Baghdad
, and people had left behind severe constraints caused by the dismemberment of
old Iranian monarchy, local satraps and warlords established their sway and
carved out principalities and satrapies for themselves. Writers, poets,
historians and intellectuals flocked to the courts of these satraps, where they
received frugal patronage from the Amir. This led to the growth of
rivalry among court historians and intellectuals who now, in a bid to make a
show of their linguistic accomplishments in Arabic so as to win the favour of
their patrons, adopted an ornate style. Thus began an age of bombast and
hyperbole in prose works of Farsi in
Iran
. This passed on to historiographers
in
Kashmir
through the conduit of Islamic missionaries who started moving into the valley
in the early decades of the 14th century
and then continued it for the next three hundred years. Being missionaries, they
had to have a very good command over the Arabic language and thorough knowledge
of the Quran, hadith and known works of theological science.
Beginning of
mediaeval historiography
When did Muslims in
Kashmir
begin to write history? This question cannot be answered precisely because of
the loss of at least three early Farsi histories as can be gleaned from later
historical record. We are told that one Mulla Naderi, living at the court of
Sultan Zainu’l-‘Abidin, A.D. 1450, was a court historian and had written the
history of his patron. This work is no more extant. Likewise, the Farsi
translation of Rajatarangini made
during the reign of Zainu’l-‘Abidin, too, is lost to us. Of more
known histories of mediaeval Kashmir, we may list Tarikh-i-Kashmir by
Sayyid Ali (A.D. 1579), Tarikh-i-Kashmir, Mull Husain Naderi (A.D. 1580),
Tadhkiatu’l-‘Arifin, Mulla Ali Raina (A.D. 1587), Tabaqat-i-Akbari,
Nizamu’d-Din (A.D. 1592), Tarikh-i- Narayan Kaul Ajiz, Tohfatul Ahbab,
Muhammad Ali Kashmiri (c. A.D. 1560), Tarikh-i-Rashidi, Mirza Haider
Dughlat (A.D. 1592) and Baharistani-Shahi, by Muhammad Ali (A.D. 1622)
Among histories of later period we may include Tarikh-i- Kabir of Miskeen (A.D.
), Waqa’at-e-Kshmir by Dedamari (A.D.
) and Tarikh-i-Kashmir by Pir Ghulam Hasan Khuihami (A.D. 1890)
Official Islam came to Kashmir in A.D. 1339, corresponding to A.H. 740,
when Shah Mir, a fugitive chieftain driven out from his native place in present
Waziristan region of
Pakistan
, captured the throne of the Hindu
kingdom
of
Kashmir
through an act of treachery against the ruling queen. Soon after that, Muslim
missionaries from
Iran
, Khurasan9 and
Ma’wara’-an Nahr 10 made
a beeline for
Kashmir
. When the Shahmiri dynasty of rulers established its sway over the vast Kingdom
of Kashmir whose boundaries extended to Gandhara (Kandahar) in the west and to
the banks of Stadru (Sutlej) to the south,11 it
realised that the nascent Muslim state could survive only when it received
politically important support of local feudal nobility, which exercised immense
influence over the people. It was, therefore, necessary to convert feudal
chiefs, their lieutenants and the higher echelons of
Kashmir
nobility to the new faith. The
energetic and zealous Muslim missionaries from proselytised
Iran
,
Iraq
and Khurasan found to their surprise a great and religiously pleasant job
awaiting them in the landlocked
Kingdom
of
Kashmir
. In the process, there was widespread destruction of vibrant symbols of Hindu
civilization, like what happened in
Iran
when the Arabs overran the Sassanian Empire and decimated the last Zoroastrian
stronghold in A.D 652.
line, the
All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) is built on one common ground –
anti-India mentality. It articulates the sentiment of people alienated from
India
. However, they are not entirely homogenous. Some APHC leaders spread hatred and
believe in the two nation theory, while some are apparently secular and
discourage violence.
National
Conference:
It is worth
noting that there has been very little resentment among Kashmiri Muslims on what
Pakistan
has done with Kargil Muslims in 1999. Even in National Conference, except Dr
Farooq Abdullah, the reaction has been subdued. Why? What is the political view
and goal of the party vis a vis the rest of
India
?
About the events in 1947 many believe that if
Pakistan
would not have attacked, Kashmir would not have become part of
India
. Even though Sheikh Abdullah, at least for the time being, was more inclined
towards
India
than
Pakistan
. May be because of his relations with Nehru and Gandhi. “But it was
Sheikh Abdullah who himself told me that had there been friendship between him
and Maharaja Hari Singh there was no need to accede to India and
‘Independence’ of the state would have been a reality.”11 Thus even if Sheikh was inclined towards
India
, the Kashmiri people’s real support towards
India
came when
Pakistan
attacked
Kashmir
. Moral and political justification for accession of Kashmir with
India
was in fact provided by
Pakistan
.
NC is reluctant to share power with non-Kashmiri people in the state.
Regional autonomy to Ladakh and
Jammu
was promised in 1952, then in 1968 and many times since then. In 1968 the draft
presented by Balraj Puri was not only accepted by Sheikh Abdullah but the entire
Kashmiri Muslim leadership including Jamat-i-Islami, Awami Action Committee,
Political Conference of G M Karra and others. But, later he was told that Sheikh
Abdulla’s commitment was not a binding on Kashmiris! (Apparently there is no
end of clever tactics in the armory of Islamic politics, anywhere in the world.)
By the same logic people of
India
are not committed to uphold promises made by Nehru to Kashmiris. But that
privilege cannot be given to the people of
India
. So the Kashmiri Muslims believe and the NC keep demanding more and more
autonomy, especially at election times.
The reality is more complicated. Autonomy for whom, for what purpose? For
a Kashmiri Hindu Pandit, even though by now just a few hundred are left in the
valley, the biggest question is whether he can survive physically in
Kashmir
and have a dignified life. For him survival is the first question and
Independence
and accession are secondary ones. When he is not safe in the presence of the
Indian security forces how can he feel safe when they would be absent. On the
other hand, for people of
Jammu
the issue is whether they will get their due share in the state administration
and economy.
Western
interests:
It is no
exaggeration that the
Kashmir
problem is largely a creation of the Anglo-Saxon powers. It was the skulduggery
of the
UK
, the
US
and the UN that allowed
Pakistan
to retain one-third of the territory it had so deliberately invaded, plundered
and ravaged in October 1947. It was the British secretary of state for
commonwealth relations Noel-Baker who, even disregarding some of his own
government’s directions, misled the Security Council to accept Pakistan’s
demands and the outright rejection of India’s views.12 Later
the Americans wooed Shekh Abdullah and in all probability conspired to create an
independent territory in J&K, which they could use for their geo-political
strategic advantage. It is difficult to say whether they have given up that
desire.
Sometimes Pakistani leaders, including those in government
say, which was widely reported, that
Pakistan
was ready to modify its stand. That
Pakistan
supports a district wise plebiscite in
Jammu and Kashmir
, which by implication meant that Bhudhist and Hindu areas have to be separated.
Along with this development, proposals for the division of the state more or
less on communal lines started to be voiced from the
US
like ‘autonomy within,
India
’, ‘Sovereignty without International personality’, etc etc.
Prospects:
In 1996,
militancy had been almost totally wiped out. If Farooq Abdullah had been sincere
and fulfilled the election promises he had made, matters would not have come to
such a pass. Militancy can be controlled, but without good political and
administrative ledership, long term peace and stability is difficult to achieve.
Even the Army emphasize this. Farooq Abdullah or Mufti Muhammad can give no
excuse for not fulfilling election promises.
At the moment there are two wars that
India
is fighting in Kashmir- first, the proxy war by
Pakistan
and second, the war for the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people. Many
believe that winning completely the second war will make the war against the
first much easier for
India
to fight.
However, the issue of autonomy vs regional autonomy would remain in
focus. After the recent agitation over the facilities for Sri Amarnath yatra
undertaken yearly by the Hindus from all over
India
, this has to the main issue to address. Regional tensions, which are inherent
in the present unitary and centralised constitution of the state, can be seen at
the root of most of the complications in the
Kashmir
problem. For, in their protest against domination by the Kashmir-based
leadership, people in
Jammu
and Ladakh tend to seek sympathy from
New Delhi
or seek erosion of autonomy of the state so that the power of the state
government to dominate over them is curtailed. The people in
Kashmir
treat these moves as a threat to their identity and to defend their privileged
position seek support from across the border.
That leaves two options for the leaders of
Kashmir
valley. Either to seek a separate destiny for the region, along with the Muslim
majority areas of
Jammu
and Ladakh. Or concede the urge for identity and empowerment of the peoples of
Jammu
and Ladakh by adopting a federal constitutional set-up for the state.
Finally, a future scenario and the best hope. To quote Farooq Abdullah:
“Can you imagine,
India
is one billion people, and we’re a tourist state. Out of that billion, even
if one million people come a year, many of our problems will be over. At least,
children will not have to find government jobs. They will run small dhaabas,
taxis, tea-shops, small hotels. That’s good enough for me.”13 Interview
to Varsha Bhosle, rediff.com, 2 Sept. 1999.
Indeed, good enough for everyone. If only Abdullah could be always
sincere with that.
Notes:
1. Speech in the J&K
Assemby, 16 July 2002
2. Interview to Varsha
Bhosle, rediff.com, 2 Sept.
1999
3. The Times of
India
,
New Delhi
, 8 July 2000
4. Balraj Puri, in
Kashmir
Sentinel, 16-31 June 1999.
5. The Asian Age,
Mumbai, 19 June 2000
6. The Asian Age ,
Mumbai, 27 November 2000
7. Data supplied by Prof.
Hari Om,
Jammu
University
. Quoted by Arvind Lavakare in ‘The Woes of
Jammu
and Laddakh ’ at the rediff.com, 17 July 2002
8. The poll was conducted
by MORI (Market & Opinion Research International) inside
Jammu and Kashmir
in April 2002. It is the largest independently-owned market research company in
the
United Kingdom
, run by a British parliamentarian
having a pro-Pakistan tilt.
9. The Tribune,
Chandigarh
,7 August, 2000
10. Jagmohan, My Frozen
Turbulence in
Kashmir
(New Delhi, 1992), p. 149
11. Balraj Puri in an
interview to Kashmir Sentinel , 16-31 June 1999.
12. Described in detail by
C Dasgupta, War and Diplomacy in
Kashmir
, 1947-48. This reference from India Today ,
New Delhi
, 28 Jan. 2002 .
13. Interview to Varsha
Bhosle, rediff.com, 2 Sept. 1999.