A Kashmiri is very much attached to this 80 miles long and 25 miles wide valley. He has lived in it for centuries in almost total isolation guarded by massive natural mountain barriers. Even Alexander the Great and Mehmmud of Ghazni had to turn back from Loran, Punch, which is the shortest route to the valley through Tosamaidan, due to its natural defences. The forts of Lohar-Kot at Loran were always considered the most impregnable defence of the valley.

A Kashmiri has never left the valley of his own free will. To him even going to Kargil was in earlier times an exile. In the Kashmir of ancient days he had replicated every thing here and did not have to go out of the valley. During the Hindu period, he had his Ganga and Jamuna as well as Prayag here. Even at present, a Kashmiri may be living in absolute prosperity and luxury outside Kashmir but he always pines to return to this beautiful valley where there is love and warmth.

After losing their independence to Mughals in 1586 AD through the treachery played on Kashmir’s last sovereign ruler Yusuf Shah Chak, Kashmiris have gone through many difficult and hard periods but have survived because of their infinite patience and resilience. During these four centuries all these foreign rulers drained out every drop of resistance and chivalry from these poor people who had seen the best of times in the early part of their history. The Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs and Dogras used every means to turn once brave and proud people into wretched vassals. Afghans and Sikhs were the worst rulers. Sikhashahi is a quite well known metaphor for tyranny in Kashmir. It is said that during Sikh period if a Kashmiri would kill a Sikh, he would be hanged. If a Sikh would kill a Kashmiri, he would be fined four rupees. Two would go to official treasury and two would be given to the next of kin. Tyndale Biscoe mentions in his book, Kashmir in Sunlight and Shade, if the British had gone through the oppression, which Kashmiris have faced, they would have lost their manhood! After having faced all these worst trials and tribulations of history, the Kashmiris have worked out a unique philosophy of survival. If you cannot beat them, join them! They absolutely mistrust every outsider who can never know what is truly in the heart of a Kashmiri. They never give up but only quieten down temporarily and keep things to themselves waiting for the next best opportunity to strike out. They rise up as a mass when they feel something is going to happen to change their lot but when things go wrong or start stagnating, they again go into hibernation as if nothing had happened.

During last four centuries there have been many instances of Kashmiris rising to assert themselves but all these attempts were put down by foreign rulers ruthlessly. In fact, Yusuf Shah’s son Yaqub Shah had resisted Mughals for at least six months after the capture of Kashmir but was ultimately arrested in Kishtwar. Both father and son died in exile. The latest attempt on the part of Kashmiris to assert themselves began in 1931 when they tried to storm the Maharaja’s Central Jail where some of their compatriots were being tried for sedition. This is taken as a turning point in Kashmir’s quest for freedom. However, their greatest misfortune has been the bankruptcy of leadership.

All the leaders who started from 1931 with the promise of getting them a place of “Honour and Dignity” have settled half way after obtaining some material benefits for themselves and their kith and kin. Sheikh Abdullah, who started as a colossal deliverer like the Moses of Israelites, died as a sad and confused Messiah. Dr.Joseph Korbel describes him in his book, Danger in Kashmir, as a shallow patriot. He rose like a morning star over Kashmir but fell like a meteor after joining in 1947 the Government of the same Maharaja against whom he had started the Quit Kashmir Movement in 1946. People loved him and could never imagine that he will ever betray them. Kashmiris are dead worshippers and have erected shrines over the tombs of all important and pious people in every town and village. Sheikh Abdullah’s grave is the only one that has not become a shrine but is protected by security forces. Korbel describes Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as a faithless person who, according to him, became a Christian in early childhood to get some benefits from the Church Missionary Society. G.M.Sadiq is described as a staunch communist.

Every upheaval in Kashmir has thrown up a new breed of leaders. There are two types of leaders. Pro establishment and anti establishment. The pro-establishment leaders are not leaders in the real sense. They are not elected but selected as per the requirement of their masters or patrons from time to time. They act mostly as “employees” and do not have to work at all for the well being of the people. They have a powerful patron who does everything for them. They are only concerned about their salary and perks. The people do not matter for them, as they are accountable only to their patron. People can always be hired for them. They are followed by all kinds of mercenaries and sycophants whose sole aim is to make a quick buck.

Then there are anti establishment leaders who are thrown up occasionally during some historical events. It happened in 1963 at the time of Holy Relic agitation. It happened in 1990 with the eruption of militancy. There are two types of anti establishment leaders. Underground and above ground. Underground leaders are beyond any comment. They have totally different ideology and methodology, which involves a long debate which can be subject of a separate article. The over ground leaders who are continuously in touch with the people can be easily scrutinized and commented upon. However, most of the time these leaders have failed to come up to peoples’ expectations. There has always been a gap between the peoples’ aspirations and leaders projection of the same. A leader must first fully understand the peoples’ aspirations and then have a clear, distinct and practical blue print to achieve the same. He must know his history and have a vision for the future. Above all he must have the strength of character to lead his people selflessly to the final goal. Unfortunately, most of the leaders here have lacked these basic qualities of leadership. They have not even succeeded in arriving at a consensus as to what the peoples’ aspirations are and how these can be achieved. Each one has been pulling in his own direction leaving people totally confused and bewildered.

Most unfortunately, the first and the foremost actions of a new leader are about his dress code. He gets a Karakul cap, grows a beard, wears a Sherwani or Shalwar Kameez with a matching Waistcoat and goes for a Pashmina Shawl or a Doosa. To him the dress code and personal presentation is more important than the substance of his preaching. He always starts with the promise of getting people the “Place of Honour and Dignity”. The slogans vary between Autonomy, Self-determination, Plebiscite or the ultimate Azadi. But how these goals can be achieved or in what form? He is usually vague. What does Azadi mean? Total independence? If so, of what? The whole State, the Valley only or the Valley and the peripheral districts constituting Greater Kashmir? Merger with Pakistan or with India, full or conditional? There is no consensus on any of the goals or on the methodology to achieve it. Short of Azadi, there are many things which merit serious concern of all types of leaders of all hues and shades. These are about Kashmir itself. No body is bothered about the slow death of Dal lake. No concern is expressed about fast vanishing forests. No attention is paid to the deteriorating standards of education. Easy money is cutting at the roots of our moral values. Society is getting shattered and no one seems to be bothered. Corruption has seeped into our blood. By the time people reach goal of Azadi, these leaders will have to start a fresh struggle to rid our society of all these ills. Why cannot they do it now, making this too a part of their struggle for “Azadi”?

The greatest irony is that the over ground anti establishment leaders are being protected by the establishment itself. Some of these leaders also have a powerful patron from across. In the given circumstances, only leaders with patronage from either side presenting utopian goals with vague and confused line of action are able to dominate the scene. There is very little chance for the genuine or truly independent leadership to emerge and contribute something creative and constructive. In such a situation, the leadership assumes a collective role and reverts back to the masses in general. When leaders lose touch with reality as well as masses, history throws up a fresh bunch of leaders and the earlier ones get swept away. Kashmir may be waiting for the same to happen sooner than later!