**
Monday, March 25, 2024
spot_imgspot_imgspot_imgspot_img

A Different Legacy

   

It was Sheikh Abdullah’s trusted man Bakshi Ghulam Ahmad who replaced him and erased his legacy, although marginally.  Hafsa Kanjwal argues that New Delhi used Bakshi to get things done in Kashmir that Sheikh might have resisted

The then Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad with a visiting delegation from Delhi.

When elders of the generation that lived through the fifties and sixties in Kashmir are asked about Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, they hesitate and then give a half-smile. “He did a lot for Kashmir,” many say, “but at what cost?”

Bakshi emerged as Sheikh Abdullah’s right-hand man under the Emergency Administration (1947-1953). Coming from a humble background and having only passed the eighth standard, Bakshi was said to have a deep and genuine concern for the common man.  While Sheikh was seen as being more aloof and arrogant, it was Bakshi who was perhaps the more populist leader- organizing, meeting people, bringing them together, and making sure matters were being dealt with efficiently. In 1947, at an important working committee meeting of the National Conference, Bakshi joined a number of leaders in favouring accession to Pakistan. Yet, he told Sheikh that whatever they would decide that day—he should stick to it and not look back. Unfortunately for Kashmiris, Bakshi was more pragmatic than an ideologue.

New Delhi knew this, of course, and when Sheikh started getting out of their control, they had already targeted Bakshi as his replacement.

In August 1953, Bakshi took over as Prime Minister after Sheikh and his associates were arrested. While Sheikh’s legacy has subsequently been torn to shreds, Bakshi’s legacy is a bit more complicated.

Bakshi was tasked with the difficult job of not only politically securing the accession of Kashmir for India, but also “emotionally” integrating Kashmiris into the Indian Union. He was to do this at a time when Kashmiris throughout the valley were agitating and getting killed for protesting against the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah. In a series of strategic moves that privileged the economic over the political, Bakshi managed to temporarily contain the agitation. Because Bakshi had dealt so closely with common Kashmiris, he had an innate sense of people’s immediate, material needs. After taking power, Bakshi’s administration ended the exploitative system of mujawaza, made education free, and took on a number of important developmental projects, including the Sonawari Block Project. More importantly, Bakshi introduced rice at heavily subsidized rates, earning the adulation of thousands of Kashmiris who had faced starvation under Sheikh’s reign.

Bakshi was particularly concerned for Kashmiri Muslims, who were still marginal when it came to education and employment. He is credited with the creation of the Engineering and Medical colleges, two premier institutions that have enabled some form of social mobility for a significant number of Kashmiri Muslims since their founding. He also employed a number of Kashmiri Muslims into different government positions—sometimes giving high posts to individuals who had barely passed matriculation. Oftentimes, Bakshi would come across unemployed young men on his tours throughout the Valley and give these orders on matchboxes and paper napkins.

Along with informal patronage came significant levels of corruption. So much money was coming from India (although mostly in the form of loans and not grants as is sometimes believed), that corruption became rampant in all levels of the bureaucracy. Bakshi would even boast that if someone was unable to get rich during his time, they would never be able to do so. His family, known as the Bakshi Brothers Corporation, and close associates especially benefited from this practice.

Kashmir’s last Prime Minister Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad visited the periphery.

It is because of some of these populist reforms and what was perceived as a genuine concern for the common people that Bakshi is judged less critically than other leaders in Kashmiri history. But the judgment must be dealt. No matter where Bakshi’s personal ideological commitment laid, practically speaking his reign transformed the political status of the region into one that was further entrenched into the Indian Union. In pursuing an ideology of the “good life,” Bakshi sought to use particular political and rhetorical practices that worked to displace discussion surrounding substantive political issues in the Kashmiri public.

While this included an approach that addressed people’s dire need for economic wellbeing, education and employment, it also attempted to repress any political activity that was deemed subversive, which at that time included the movement calling for a plebiscite. Any anti-Indian activity was suppressed and dealt with harshly through the free hand given to the infamous Peace Brigades and a notorious police officer. While Sheikh had tried to maintain some form of financial independence from the Indian Union, Bakshi had no such qualms. The customs tax was dismissed and Kashmir became financially integrated with India. The permit system was abolished. On the legislative scale, the unrepresentative Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, declaring the state to be an integral part of India.

It appears that Bakshi had gained some popularity in the first few years of his reign, largely due to his populist policies. Over time, however, his administration’s corruption, misrule, and suppression became too much for even New Delhi to handle. Just as easily as he was brought in, he was also brought out, under the auspices of the Kamraj plan. Immediately after, the holy relic incident occurred, and at the time, it was believed that the Bakshi family was responsible for the theft. Large crowds gathered in protest, some even torching property held by members of the family.

Bakshsi Ghulam Mohammad taking to a lady in Kokernag area in 1954 in this file pic.
Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad talking to a lady in Kokernag area in 1954 in this file pic.

After a few more attempts in politics, Bakshi died in 1972. While Sheikh Abdullah’s grave is guarded, to this day, Bakshi’s grave remains unguarded, a reflection of his contradicting legacy.

What are some of the lessons we can learn from the Bakshi era? His reign can help us think more critically about the relationship between economics and politics as well as the dangers of sacrificing ideology for practicality.

Economic and material concerns matter to people, and any vision for Kashmir’s future must critically take that into account. However, they are not the only concerns that matter. While economic concerns may take precedence in a particular moment, political concerns remain. Although people can be brought physically, their sentiments cannot be brought, and while a movement can lapse into sentiment, the sentiment remains as the underlying script.

Hafsa Kanjwal is a PhD candidate in the Department of History and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Get in Touch

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

Latest Posts