Showing posts with label J & K. Show all posts
Showing posts with label J & K. Show all posts

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Finally A CDS For The Indian Armed Forces – Analysis

SOURCE:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/19082019-finally-a-cds-for-the-indian-armed-forces-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29




Indian Army soldiers. Photo Credit: US DoD, SGT Mike MacLeod, Wikipedia Commons.







    Finally A CDS For The Indian Armed                            Forces – Analysis 

                                By

                  Maj Gen Alok Deb*



19 August , 2019 
UPDATED 15 JAN 2021


The Prime Minister’s announcement on Independence Day from the ramparts of the Red Fort that a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) for the Indian armed forces would be announced soon, has given rise to elation within the uniformed fraternity. What model should be followed for institutionalising such an appointment and what it entails in terms of reorganisation and operational control has been a matter of heated debate, both within the armed forces and the civilian bureaucracy. Some seem to be hailing it as the panacea for all ills afflicting national security, while others are dismissive, predicting that the appointment will be more ceremonial than anything else. 
Given the different models being followed by countries such as the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) which have trodden this path earlier, as also the reorganisation (on for a couple of years now) in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and the existing dispensation in the Pakistan armed forces, such discussions are understandable and, indeed, welcome. 
Jointness is a term that achieved a fresh lease of life after the Kargil War and the subsequent recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee. It has been the focus of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for the last few years, based on the directions given by the Prime Minister with great clarity in his address at the Combined Commanders Conference held aboard INS Vikramaditya in December 2015.A further fillip to Jointness has been given by the word ‘Integration’. The implications of these two words differ as evinced by all that has been written on the subject in recent years, including the views of the Army and Navy and the perspective of the Air Force. 
Though India has an Integrated Defence Staff (IDS), what such integration might actually entail in terms of integrated headquarters (instead of joint), preparing for war in terms of common doctrines, force structures, policies and training objectives, amalgamating logistic resources and other assets and so on is yet to be fully accepted by all stakeholders, and thus not spelt out in detail. Obviously, the way forward is long and challenging. 
At the end of it all, what should finally come about is an India specific model born out of its own peculiarities, current state of individual services, and an overarching long-term perspective of just what the nation requires in the security sphere. While the scope of responsibility of the CDS (in addition to commanding various joint organisations) is being worked out in South Block, as an exercise, it would be instructive to see what changes could be implemented immediately within the current organisational structures through greater jointness, before getting into the gamut of full integration which should be the logical end state. More so, since (for now at least) the Indian armed forces have not been force fed, as their counterparts in the US were with the passage of the Goldwater Nichols Act in the last century. 
In the December 2015 speech referred to earlier, two observations made by the Prime Minister deserve greater attention today: “At a time when major powers are reducing their forces and rely more on technology, we are still constantly seeking to expand the size of our forces. Modernisation and expansion of forces at the same time is a difficult and unnecessary goal.”2
Given the defence budgeting constraints, a fact accepted by realist defence planners, the necessity for a single point agency to prioritise our weapons procurements based on an accepted joint warfighting doctrine, predicated in turn on national security policy aims and proposed end states, becomes mandatory. A step towards this has been taken with the issue of a joint operational doctrine by HQ IDS in 2018. The CDS would have the authority to bring greater coherence to the doctrine and authorise corresponding amendments if warranted to the Long Term Integrated Procurement Plan (LTIPP), which would automatically acquire greater salience in future. As a corollary, the CDS would be actively involved in formalising newer and modern force structures in consultation with the three services. As the single point of advice to the Government, his recommendations would receive due consideration. He would also provide major inputs for the National Security Strategy and will be responsible for producing the National Military Strategy. 
The above are some of the major responsibilities that the CDS could discharge even today, without any other type of reorganisation, resulting in efficient budgeting and effective warfighting. Needless to say, whatever is proposed must have the appropriate governmental sanction failing which the purpose of setting up such an office would be defeated. There are other tasks which a CDS can perform with minimum restructuring. One is to manage integrated logistics, a concept whose time has come. Some initial steps have been taken in this direction in selected stations, but the matter remains in its infancy. 
Whether it is repairs and recovery, infrastructure development, victualling for all the three services, or procurement of rations, fuels, oils or lubricants, or management of military lands, much can be done by integrating all or some of these functions. Training is another area. While some level of joint training already exists in important staff courses conducted by the Defence Services Staff College (DSSC) at Wellington, it is time to substantially enhance the joint syllabus in such courses. More importantly, while inter service organisations have enough officers from each service, the numbers from one service posted to the headquarters of the other services continue to be miniscule.
As a worldwide phenomenon, militaries being hierarchical societies are known to be averse to major change. The Government has provided an opening to the Services to commence the process of change in a graduated manner. The level of success achieved depends on the sagacity of both the civil and the military brass. The opportunity must be grasped if India’s security aspirations are to be met in full in the near future. A successful beginning by a first time CDS will be a keynote for the same.
                                 ----------------------------------

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.
*About the author: Maj Gen Alok Deb, SM, VSM (Retired) is Deputy Director General at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). 

Source: This article was published by IDSA

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Article 370 - Bridge or Barricade?

SOURCE:
(14) Article 370 - Bridge or Barricade_ Seminar conducted by Daksha Legal - Mr. J Sai Deepak, Advocate - YouTube

Article 370 & 35A  - Bridge or Barricade?



     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsop-a6vM8





#article370 #article35a #saideepak


Article 370 - Bridge or Barricade? Seminar conducted by Daksha Legal - Mr. J Sai Deepak, Advocate





Published on Aug 5, 2019

SUBSCRIBE 1.9K

Key Speaker - J Sai Deepak, Advocate, Supreme Court of India Organized by S Basavaraj, Daksha Legal & Supporters Held on August 2nd 2019 between 5pm to 8pm Article 370 & 35a discussed in detail; Covering Implications through. History Geographical Social Legal International Political

Friday, August 23, 2019

Revisiting Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest in 1953

SOURCE:
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/revisiting-sheikh-abdullah-s-arrest-in-1953/820225.html





           Revisiting Sheikh Abdullah’s

                     arrest in 1953 

                                By 

           Vappala Balachandran 

      (Ex-Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat)



The final break was the Jammu Praja Parishad agitation in the winter of 1952-53, demanding full integration with India. Sheikh Abdullah reacted by spewing communal venom against the agitators, which scorched the region. Nehru asked Mullik to proceed to Jammu and deal with the situation. His mission in Jammu was successful.



Towering: Abdullah emerged powerful in the elections after the Constituent Assembly was constituted for Kashmir in 1951.


Aug 21, 2019
Doubt exists even today whether Sheikh Abdullah was arrested in 1953 on a faulty reading of the mind and motives of that complex personality. Some say that he was a closet sympathiser of Pakistan, while others affirm that he was totally aligned to secular India. Some believe that he was pursuing the independence option, like his bete noire Hari Singh. There are others, like former Foreign Secretary Yezdezard Dinshaw Gundevia, who believe that he was arrested after a typecast police investigation. Gundevia was then handling Kashmir in our foreign office as Joint Secretary.
BN Mullik, then Director, Intelligence Bureau, who had prepared grounds for Abdullah’s arrest, says that the first rupture between the Government of India and the Sheikh came in January 1949 when the three-point proposals of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), especially plebiscite, were being discussed. Abdullah would not agree on plebiscite since the National Conference had passed a resolution in October 1948, favouring accession to India. This impression is not correct as Abdullah had clearly objected to the plebiscite idea in his anti-Pakistan speech at the UN Security Council on February 5, 1948.

Mullik joined the IB only in September 1948 from the Bihar police as Deputy Director. He had no experience on Kashmir. He mentions Abdullah's towering status in Kashmir, but found difficulties in judging the veracity of reports from there on account of deep rivalry between Hari Singh (Jammu) and Abdullah (Valley). His first conflict with Abdullah was in January 1949 when the local IB officer started inquiries about an interview with foreign correspondents Michael Davidson and Ward Price when Abdullah spoke of ‘independence’. Senior minister Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, who was handling Kashmir, advised Mullik to withdraw the IB officer ‘in larger interests’. Ayyangar had to intervene again when Abdullah objected to a new IB officer who was not ‘cleared’ by him. 


Mullik could not visit Srinagar earlier than August 1949 to build a rapport with top leaders, although Ayyangar had advised him to meet them regularly. He stayed for 10 days and was convinced that the reports indicating Abdullah's hostile intentions were unfounded. On return to Delhi, he submitted his report to his Director who passed it on to Home Secretary HVR Iyengar. The latter sent copies to Prime Minister Nehru and Home Minister Sardar Patel. Nehru circulated his report to our foreign missions. Patel who was ‘unhappy’ with Mullik's report,  summoned him, told him that he did not trust Abdullah and that Nehru should not have circulated it widely. Simultaneously, Patel was also getting reports from Hari Singh about Abdullah's communal agenda. 
Mullik, who became IB Director in July 1950, started dealing with Kashmir personally. Things changed in Kashmir at a frenetic pace from the middle of 1949, with Pakistan playing subversive cards, like subverting Pir Maqbool Gilani and NC leader Ghulam Mohiuddin Karra, who formed the pro-Pakistan Political Conference. The IB collected evidence of arms smuggling into the Valley. Abdullah started indulging in competitive communalism. His rhetoric often swung from the independence option to accession to India. 


On April 4, 1951, the Yuvraj constituted a Constituent Assembly for Kashmir. Mullik says that it was Gopalaswamy Ayyangar’s idea, but Abdullah used it for his political advantage. Its intention was to ratify accession to India, but its elections enabled Abdullah to emerge as the sole repository of power. This assembly also abolished Maharaja’s rule and created the post of Sardar-e-Riyasat, electing Karan Singh as the first incumbent from November 17, 1952. Mullik says that Abdullah attempted to frustrate attempts by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, DP Dhar and Sadiq for closer integration with India. Rumours started floating that Abdullah was keeping his options open. 
Here, Mullik introduces a surprise twist. He refers to a talk in New Delhi circles that “the Sheikh was the right person to succeed Pandit Nehru or to become his deputy in his lifetime.” Then he refers to an intelligence report that Abdullah was actually a suspected British agent for spearheading the liberation movement in the early 1930s since the British did not like Hari Singh “as he refused to be subservient to him.” “The British had also tried to use this channel to bring about a cleavage between Hindus and Muslims…. I mentioned this to Pandit Nehru and he was surprised.” It is odd that he had introduced an unverifiable factor in his book on Kashmir history published after Nehru’s death.  
The final break was the Jammu Praja Parishad agitation in the winter of 1952-53, demanding full integration with India. Abdullah reacted by spewing communal venom against the agitators, which scorched the region. Nehru asked Mullik to proceed to Jammu and deal with the situation. His mission in Jammu was successful. But he was received very coldly by the Sheikh. When he narrated this to Bakshi and Dhar, they asked him to convey to Nehru that “the Sheikh was using this agitation as an excuse to get out of his previous commitments to India.” Abdullah was dismissed by the Sardar-e-Riyasat on August 8, 1953, and arrested.
In his book Flames of the Chinar, Abdullah blames DN Kachru, Nehru's aide, for his rift with Nehru. In 1968, the Shabistan Urdu Digest published Abdullah's long interview. Its English edition was with YD Gundevia’s articles defending Nehru and Sheikh. Abdullah mentioned a 1965 incident while in Mecca when several Muslim countries offered him asylum in the wake of Indian media’s attacks on him. He refused. On his return, he was arrested again. 
A few months after Abdullah’s arrest, Mullik met C Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), then Chief Minister of Madras (1952-54) who was Governor-General (1948-50) and had succeeded as Union Home Minister in December 1950 after Patel’s death. Rajaji strongly felt that it was wrong to have arrested the Sheikh. “Rajaji said that the Sheikh should have been given a third alternative of autonomy or even semi-independence and the door should not have been shut against him. He apprehended that continued uncertainty and unrest would prevail in the Valley.” 
Should we remember Rajaji’s prognosis when we have now swung the pendulum in favour of Jammu, alienating the Valley? 











Kashmir Problem Has Origin In Fall Of Buddhism

SOURCE:
http://velivada.com/2019/08/17/kashmir-problem-has-origin-in-fall-of-buddhism/





                               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-TOu_AITSI





           Jesus In India (BBC Documentary


                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-TOu_AITSI

      Kashmir Problem Has Origin In

                 Fall Of Buddhism


Originally published on April 13, 2000, the following article is written by eminent Ambedkarite writer Dr K. Jamanadas.




The Kashmir Problem
Kashmir problem is one which is consuming a lot of lives, time, money and resources of Indians and Pakistanis since Independence. Various wars have been fought on the issue, but still, there is no solution to it in sight. It is worth noting that the origin of the problem seems to be the creation of two countries out of undivided India in 1947.
The majority population of Kashmir had already become Muslim long before Akbar annexed Kashmir to his Empire in 1557 A.D., and it became a Moghul summer holiday resort during the reign of Jahangir and Shahjehan. Nadirshah conquered and annexed it to his Afghan kingdom in 1639 A.D. After the Sikhs’ tenth Guru Govindsingh’s religious movement of Khalsa, a powerful Sikh dynasty was established by Ranjit Singh in Punjab. He conquered Kashmir in 1819 A.D., ending the Muslim rule there.
Hindus made Punjab a slave country
Ranjitsingh ruled Punjab for forty years. The whole of India, the Rajputs, Rohilas, Gorkhas, Marathas and Mughals all of them, one by one, surrendered to the British. But still, Punjab remained independent till 28th March 1849. Ranjitsingh died on 27th June 1839, but the Sikhs kept on fighting against the British. The discredit of pushing Punjab into slavery falls on three Dogra brothers – Gulab Singh, Dhyansing and Suchetsingh. “With the greedy intention of establishing a Hindu Raj”, these Dogra brothers – and specially Dhyansing killed Chetsingh Bajawa, who was running the administration for the son of Ranjitsingh. Then they killed Naunihalsingh the son of Khadagsingh. They allowed Chandra Kaur, the widow of Khadagsingh to rule for a month and a half only, and then killed her. Afterwards, they also killed Shersingh, the second son of Maharaja Ranjitsingh, and his son Pratapsingh. Dogras also killed Ajitsingh Sandhavaliya, a close relative of Chandrakaur. While the Sikhs were keeping up the fight with the British and sacrificing their lives to save their homeland, for two months from 18th December 1845 to 10th February 1846, the Dogras were bargaining with the British. Ultimately Gulabsing Dogra, not only surrendered himself but made Deelipsingh, the last heir of Ranjitsingh to surrender on 29th March 1849. As a reward of this, the British sold him the province of Jammu and Kashmir for 2,50,000 pounds sterling and returned the treasury of Suchetsingh. Thus Punjab got slavery and the Dogras got the province of Jammu and Kashmir. [Bali L. R., “Hinduism – dharma ya kalank”, (hindi), p.248]
Gulab Singh’s son Ranveersingh succeded him in 1857, he annexed Gilgit province to Kashmir in 1885. His son Pratapsingh died in 1925 A.D. and Harisingh came on throne, who ruled till accession to Indian Union after the British left.
But the real origins of the Kashmir problem are from the times when the Kashmir population became Muslims. It is well known that Kashmir in ancient times was ruled by Buddhist and Brahmanic kings and its population was mostly non-Muslim. The story of how it became Muslim is very interesting and also illuminating because it denotes the tendency of the propagators of varna supremacy in establishing the caste system. Let us, therefore, trace the history of Kashmir.
Nagas in Pre-historical times
It is now well established that pre-Aryan Harrapan culture was a Naaga culture, and India was a Naagabhumi. It was during the reign of the sixth king of Naaga dynasty, king Ajatsatru, ruling Magadha, that the Buddha was born in 623 B.C. He also belonged to a Naaga kula. The matter is discussed by us in more detail elsewhere. Kashmir also was inhabited by Nagas, who later became Buddhists.
Nagas in Mahabharata
It is an accepted fact, that Mahabharata had minimum three revisions as per Brahmanic scholars, along with Gita in it. As a matter of fact, scholars like Khair, an ardent student of Gita from Pune, has differentiated the verses of Gita of each of three authors, in his book, “The Quest for the original Gita”. [  https://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/quest-for-original-gita-IDG551/ ]  Western scholars like Kaegi believe that the epics continued to be interpolated up to the 13th century and even to the beginning of the current century.
Therefore, it is no wonder that Rhys Davids finds it difficult to assign particular verses to Mahabharata depicting the state of affairs in the seventh century B.C. at the time of rising of Buddha. [Rhys Davids, p. 214] He feels the changes made by priests were “because the priests found that ideas not current in their schools had so much weight with the people that they (the priests) could no longer afford to neglect them.” The objects of priests in doing so were:
“…in the first place to insist on the supremacy of the brahmins, which had been so much endangered by the great popularity of the anti-priestly views of the Buddhists and others; and in the second place to show that the brahmins were in sympathy with, and had formally adopted, certain popular cults and beliefs highly esteemed by the people. In any case, there, in the poem, these cults and beliefs, absent from the Vedic literature, are found in full life and power. …” [Rhys Davids, “Buddhist India”, p. 214]
Mahabharata opens with a curse on Nagas
To start with, this epic poem opens, with a curse on the serpents. Poet uses the words so cleverly that, if carelessly read, the curse could appear to be on reptiles and not on human worshipers. But in reality, it is a curse on the Naaga people. In Adi Parva, the word used is “Naaga” and in Vana Parva, where Bhima gets in trouble with Nahusha in the form of a real serpent, it is “sarpa”. [Fergusson, p. 47, fn.]
“the story of great sacrifice for the destruction of the serpents is so mixed up with historical and human action that it is evident at once that the ambiguity about the name is only seized upon by the Hindu poets as an excuse for introducing the supernatural into an ordinary human transaction, …” [Fergusson, p. 47]
Immediately after the introductory passages, the story Naaga races starts with two sisters Kadru and Vinata marrying Rishi Kashyapa. Kadru, the eldest, becomes the mother of 1,000 Nagas, from whom originates the whole Naaga race. Important among the names of her decedents are Sesha, Vasuki, Airavata, Takshaka, Karkotaka, Kaaliya, Aila or Elaapatra, Nila, Anila, Nahusha and others. The younger sisters give birth to garuda, who becomes a powerful enemy of Garuda race.
“When divested of all poetical garb and mythological rubbish”, Ferguson believes that the heroes Mahabharata, “Lunar race” are of the second horde of Aryan race coming to India, coming about 1000 years after purer “Solar race”, their original seat traced near north of Peshawar, however, has shown all of the Buddhistic sculptures of Bactrian influence. [Fergusson, p. 59]
They passed through Punjab and settled at Hastinapura. In the first transaction with Nagas, they burn the forest Khandava, for making a place for a second capital and dislodge the Nagas there. The Nagas were protected by a Buddhist deity Indra. But attacked by Vedic god Agni, the brahmin poet depicts that all Nagas perished except their king Takshaka. [Fergusson, p. 60]
The relations with the Pandus and Nagas were most friendly as seen by Arjuna, marrying first Ulupi, the daughter of a Naaga king at the foot of Himalayas, near Hurdwar, and marrying Chitrangada, daughter of Chitravahana, the Naaga king of Manipur. By her, he had a son, Bhabra-vahana, who played a strange part subsequently, during Arjuna’s Ashwamedha. From these and other minor particulars, Fergusson feels, “the author of Mahabharata wished to represent the Aryans of that day as cultivating friendly relations with the aborigines.” [Fergusson, p. 60]

The quarrel between Aryans and Naagas started when Parikshit insulted a hermit by hanging a dead snake around his neck. Hermit’s son invoked Takshaka, who is represented as king of Takshashila. Takshaka bit the king to death to avenge the insult. Janmejaya started the great sacrifice for destruction of the Naagas to avenge the assassination of his father. Thousands – myriads – had already perished when slaughter was stayed at the intervention of Astika, a Brahmin, though nephew of Vasuki, a Naaga king of east. [Fergusson, p. 60]

The site of the Naaga sacrifice of Janmejaya is said to be Kurukshetra, but it is more probable that the site is in Orrisa, at Agrahaut. Here the tradition of Mahabharata is preserved by images of kings, who could not be present on the occasion. And the serpent worship is still prevalent in the region. [Fergusson, p. 61]
Naaga Rajas in Kashmir
Kashmir has always been considered as “Naag bhumi”. Ferguson mentions that a century before Christ, king Damodara, as per Raj Tarangani, was converted into a snake because he offended some brahmin, and also mentions many Naaga kings. [Fergusson, “Tree and Serpent Worship”, p. 45] When Huen Tsang entered the valley in 632 A.D. during the reign of Baladitya, Buddhism was flourishing, though the King was against Buddhism. He repeats the usual story of the valley being a lake in the past but adds that fifty years after the Nirvana of the Buddha, a disciple of Ananda, converted the Naaga Raja, who quitted the tank, built 500 monasteries, and invited bhikkhus to dwell in them. [Fergusson, “Tree and Serpent Worship”, p. 46]
Buddhism in the Ashokan period
Wherever Buddhism spread, it always spread by persuasion and never by force. Kashmir was no exception. Ferguson has observed:
No war was ever waged by Buddhists, … No faith was ever so essentially propagated by persuasion as that of Buddha, and though the Buddhists were too frequently persecuted even to destruction, there is no instance on record of any attempt to spread their faith by force in any quarter of the globe.” [Fergusson, “Tree and Serpent Worship”, p.63]
Kashmir was in Ashoka’s empire. A bhikkhu, named Majjhantiko, was sent to Kashmir and Gandhara by Ashoka after Third Sangiti (Council) in 253 B.C. Aravaalo, the Naaga king ruling there, tried to terrify the bhikkhu, but was ultimately converted to Buddhism. [Fergusson, “Tree and Serpent Worship”, p. 47]
The first people to get converted were the Naaga tribe of Kashmir out of 14 tribes there. That is the reason why Naaga is a suffix of many places in Kashmir, such as Anant Naaga, Sheshanaaga, Neelanaaga, Naagabal, Kokaranaaga, Sukhanaaga etc. [Gayakwad Vijay, “kashmiratil buddha dharma cha itihas”, (Marathi), Publ. by author, Ulhasnagar, 1990., p. six] It was Ashoka, who established the city of Srinagar, says Rajtarangini. His son Jalouk became king of Kashmir, who built “Krutyakama vihara”. Kashmir was under King Milinda, who had discussions of “Milind- pannaha”, 12 yojanas away from Kashmir valley. Two Kushana kings, Hushka and Jushka also ruled in Kashmir, before Kanishka. [ibid. p.53]
Time of Naagaarjuna and Kanishka
Naagaarjuna was the ruling spirit behind the Fourth Buddhist Council held under Kanishaka, though Vasumitra was the President, at Kundanvana near Srinagar. Mahayana started after this Council. Cannon was compiled in Mahavibhasha. It is said:
“the words uttered by the Sakya Muni during his lifetime, had been heard and noted down by the Nagas, and have kept them to themselves in their own abode, till such time as mankind would become worthy to receive them. Naagaarjuna gave out that he had received these documents from the Nagas and was commissioned to proclaim them to the world. …” [Fergusson, “Tree and Serpent Worship”, p. 65]
The cannon was engraved on copper plates, some of which has 300 verses have been found lately. First Buddha image was made in Kanishka’s reign in Kashmir. Coins of Kanishka have an image of standing Buddha with the words “Boddo” on the obverse. [Vijay Gayakwad, p.seven]
The Naaga and Buddhist influence persisted till Moghul times as Abdul Fazal tells us in “Ayeene Akbari”, that during reign of Akbar (1556-1605), there were temples in Kashmir, 45 of Shiva, 65 of Vishnu, 3 of Brahma, 22 of Durga, but 700 of the Nagas, in active worship. All this is confirmed by the architecture of the valley. [Fergusson, “Tree and Serpent Worship”, p.47]
Christ in Kashmir
There is a vast body of evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ came to India at the age of 14 years or so, lived in India and learned tenets of Buddhism from Bhikkus in India, returned back home at the age of 32, preached in his home country for about three years and was crucified, survived the crucifixion and came back to Kashmir and died in Kashmir at ripe old age. His grave is shown to be present in Kashmir. [See for details: “Jesus Lived in India”]
Guptas and Hunas Times
During Imperial Guptas, Kashmir remained as before. It was not conquered by Samudragupta and did not form a part of the Gupta Empire. The White Hunas attacked India but were repulsed back by Skandgupta. Tormana and Mihirkula are considered to be Hunas. Tormana, a wise statesman, revived the lost fortune of Hunas and established a vast empire in a short time. He was tolerant in religious affairs. His son Mihirkula succeeded in 515 A.D. and ruled from Sakala. He later grew hostile to Buddhism and ordered the destruction of “all bhikkhus through five Indies, overthrow Law of Buddha and leave nothing remaining”. He was defeated by Yashodharman as per Mandsore inscription. Huen Tsang narrates how Gupta King Baladitya defeated and captured Mihirkula but let him go on the intercession of his mother. Mihirkula obtained asylum in Kashmir and later usurped the throne of Kashmir. He persecuted Buddhists all over, and also invaded Sri Lanka to avenge the assumed insult, as his queen was wearing a garment from Ceylon having foot mark of Buddha, on her bosom. He died around 550 or thereafter, and with him was lost Huna power. Hunas lasted for a short time but destroyed the unity of India breaking it into many states and later remnants of Hunas were converted by Brahmins as Rajputs to fight against the Buddhists. The present author believes that untouchability started around this time, as Buddhist became very weak after the tyrany of Hunas. As is well known, Dr. Ambedkar assigns the time of 200 to 600 A.D. for this event.
Times of Harshavardhana
We saw Huen Tsang visiting the region in Harshavardhana’s time around 632 A.D. when Buddhism flourished there. Whether Kashmir directly formed a part of Harsha’s empire is debatable and Dr R. K. Mookerji thinks it was a dependency of Harsha and feels that Kashmir had acknowledged suzerainty of Harshavardhana as Harsha compelled the King of Kashmir to part with a relic of Buddha. [Mahajan, “Ancient India”, p. 532]
Later Kings
After Mihirkula, a powerful dynasty took over Kashmir and Lalitaditya Muktapida of Karkota dynasty was its prominent ruler around 724 A.D. He defeated Yashovarman of Kanouj. Jaypida or Vinayadittya was his grandson who had many conquests. His court was graced by many scholars. A conspiracy of Brahmanas brought about his end. Avantivarman of Utpala dynasty (855-883 A.D.) was a famous king for patronage to literature and public works. Shankarvarman (883-902 A.D.) was man of war and plundered temples. [Mahajan, “Ancient India”, p. 550]
After this dynasty came to end, Yashakara ruled, who built a monastery for students coming from Aryadesha to Kashmir. His designing minister Parvagupta persuaded him to abdicate in favour of Sangramdeva. Yashkara went to the monastery where he was poisoned and Parvagupta captured the throne by killing Sangramdeva. Parvagupta’s son Kshemagupta married Didda, a daughter of King of Lohara. She acted as a Regent for her child king Abhimanyu after the death of her husband and ruled with a strong hand. When Abhimanyu died leaving three sons, all three were eliminated one by one, by Didda, who ascended the throne in 980 A.D. Appointment of Tunga, a former herdsman, as her Prime Minister displeased the Brahmins, who brought in a son of her brother from Lohara to help them against Tunga. But queen Didda bribed the Brahmins heavily and won them back. She died in 1003 A.D. in old age and throne went to Sangramraja, a son of her brother, from Lohara, thus starting a First Lohara Dynasty. [D. C. Ganguli, “Age of Imperial Kanauj”, p. 120]
History of Kashmir before Muslim Invasion
Kashmir was one of the most vigorous centres of Buddhism and bhikkhus from there used to go to China and Tibet and other parts of central Asia. After the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet by Glan-dar-ma, it fell upon Kashmiri sramanas to reinstruct the masses thereafter a century. Many sramanas went to China in tenth and eleventh centuries and translated Buddhist scriptures into Chinese and also presented to the Emperor a branch of Bodhi tree from Gaya. Two big Buddha images installed in capital Parihaspura by previous kings were the objects of adoration for Buddhists even in the eleventh century. These two images escaped destruction at the hands of king Harsha (1089-1101 A.D.), who was keen on destroying temple images, two centuries before Muslim rule was established, and had appointed special officers for the purpose designated as devotpaatana-nayaka or “perfect for destruction of gods”, and who was labelled by Kallahana as “that Turushka”. [Struggle for Empire, p. 665]
But king Jayasimha (1128-1155 A.D.) broke down the images and burned the vihara of Arigon near Srinagar. Famous Jayendra vihara and Raja-vihara played an important role in the eleventh century, but the more important ones were Ratnagupta and Ratnarashmi vihars in 11th and 12th centuries, where a large number of Mahayana scriptures were translated into Tibetan. But various Aacharyas of Tantrik Buddhism flourished in the valley of Kashmir. Also, flourished Kshemendra who depicted Buddha as avatar of Vishnu and hence his book was discarded as profane by Tibetian Lamas. Kashmir Buddhism also had a tremendous effect on both the Kashmir schools of Shaivism. [N. N. Das Gupta, “The Struggle for Empire”, p.419 ff.]
Islamic influence
Arab invasion in 712 A.D. of Sind, over king Dahir, hardly left any marks in India, but Ghaznavid invasion, three centuries later has left permanent scars. Various invasions took place and Sultanate was established in Delhi in 1206 A.D. In spite of the opposition of orthodox Muslim religious heads and also of royal princes, the Sufi cult flourished. The Sufi cult, which should be given the credit of making many devotees from Hindus also, was founded by the saints. The founder of the cult is supposed to be Data Ganj Bakhsha of Lahore, who died in 1072 A.D. Khwaja Muin-ud-din Chishti of Ajmer, who came from Gazni in 1161 A.D., acknowledged his greatness. The followers of this cult were called Chishtis, who spread all over and included both Muslims and Hindus. Another school of Surhavardis was established, and one of them became famous for Hindus as Raja Bharaatri in Sind. Other groups also emerged. All these mystic saints spread all over India from Gujrat to Bengal and from Kashmir to Trichonapalli, in a short period and their disciples were both from Muslims and Hindus, especially of lower castes. [Struggle for Empire, p.488 ff.] The masses, majority of whom were all Buddhists, by that time came to be called as “Hindus” by Muslims, and their leaders instead of going to victor Muslims went to Brahmins. They found solace in egalitarian teachings of these Sufis, which led to the foundation of bhakti cult in India. The credit of converting Kashmir to Islam goes to one such saint fakir Bulbulshah.
Troubled times in Kashmir
Two Lohara Dynasties ruled Kashmir in the eleventh century onwards. None of them were strong monarchs, there were internal fights and a kind of anarchy developed. Buddhism declined during the first Lohar Dynasty. Poet Kshemendra describes that Buddhist nuns were adoring themselves.
Second Lohara dynasty (1101-1339 A.D.) tried to revive Buddhism to some extent. Some Viharas were built. Kalhana wrote “Rajtarangini” during this period. Bulher mentions of a Buddhist Bhikku known as Jinendra Buddha at Barahmulla in the 12th century. [Vijay Gayakwad, p.59]
The last king of the second Lohara dynasty was Vantideva (1165-1172) After him people elected one Vuppadeva as King. One of his descendants was poisoned by his officer, and there were many rivals to the throne, who ruled from different parts of Srinagar. One Ramdeva came to the throne in 1252 A.D., who adopted a brahmana Laxmandeva as his son. Laxmandeva was killed by a Muslim ruler Kajjala in battle in 1286 A.D., after which complete anarchy broke out. One Simhadeva established authority but lost his life in a love intrigue, and his brother Suhadeva, who “showed abject cowardice all along”, came to power in 1301 A.D. Dulucha, a commander of King of Kandahar overran Kashmir and left with a lot of Kashmiris as slaves. Rinchana, a Tibetian plundered the capital at the same time and assumed royal power, but died in 1323 A.D. His son Haidara was deposed by his officer Sahamera, who placed Udayandeva, a stooge, on the throne and ultimately seized the throne in 1338 after the death of Udayandeva, and ruled as Shams- ud-din. His successors ruled for a long time. [Struggle for Empire, p.102]
Sam-ud-din (1338-1355) reduced land revenue to one-sixth and became popular, making many Muslims. Shahabuddin (1355-1374), who came on throne showed respect to Buddhism by declining to accept the advice of his Brahim minister Udayshree to melt the golden images of Buddha to strike coins. The Brahmin minister, it seems, even under such trying conditions had not forgotten his contempt of Buddhism. But later, Suhabhatta, another Brahmin minister of later king Sikandar (1390-1414), got all Buddha images melted. However, Suhabhatta himself got converted to Islam by Syed Md. Hamdani, assumed the name of Saifuddin, and surpassed the Maulavis in harassing Buddhists. Later kings harrassed Hindus and Buddhists till Kashmir passed over to Akbar. [Vijay Gayakwad, p.61]
After Shamsudin, Islam became the state religion. After this, it did not take very long for the general masses of Kashmir, who were already smarting under Brahmanic tyranny of caste, to get converted into Islam. Bulbulshaha is said to have converted ten thousand people to Islam. [Vijay Gayakwad, p.125]
Another important religious saint was Syedali Hamadani, who was called “Ameer Kabir” i.e. Great Ameer, who is said to have converted 37,000 people. Born in 1314 in Iran, he was well learned, well-travelled and visited Kashmir on three occasions. He is said to have come last time in 1383 A.D. as a refugee along with seven hundred other Seyds who were warmly welcomed by the then ruler Kutubuddin. Syedali insisted on Islamic culture and manners. Majority of people had embraced Islam by the beginning of 15th century, avers Setu Madhavrao Pagdi. All these conversions were mostly voluntary. [Vijay Gayakwad, p. 126]

Views of Kancha Ilaiah of Osmania University about the spread of Islam are worth consideration. He observes:
“… Islam seems to have emerged more as a reaction to the Vedic inequality as an anti-caste social synthesiser. Brahmins of India not only appear to have been authors of “natural inequality” but were also the first propagandists of that theory on the globe. … The birth of Islam, it appears to me, has taken place to establish a total civil societal homogenisation within the sphere of religion. It put the religious equality of the people who embraced it on much more solid foundations. This could have been one of the reasons why more and more SCAs (Shudras, Chandalas and Adivasis) embraced Islam in India in the second millennium. If Muslim rulers were to force the Indians to embrace Islam they would have easily changed this country into an Islamic one. Or had they forced all the BKVs (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) to convert to Islam, their job would have been accomplished. But even in their eight hundred years of hegemonic rule, they did not do that. What attracted SCAs to Islam is its religious democratic culture – the culture of aa gale milna.” [“Meantime”, Jan. 11, 2000, p.38]
There are many scholars who try to depict Muslim rulers merely as tyrants converting Hindus to Islam by force. The point to understand is you can convert people forcibly, but you can not retain them forcibly. So Kancha Ilaiah’s analysis of Islamic invasions appears to be more rational.
Muslims could have been, to some extent, themselves influenced by the Hindus, as seen by non-circumcision of some dignitaries. Dr Ambedkar who considered Hindu Muslim relationship as a kind of caste discrimination, while commenting on inter-caste marriage of granddaughter of Bhandarkar with Muslim youth, observed that it is not always the bride side that is subdued. He quotes an example of reformists who claim that they can not do certain reform as their wives do not approve of it. He also quotes the example of Moghul kings marrying Hindu women and observes that it could be said that the Moghul Emperors themselves observed Hindu manners, as of right from liberal Akbar to orthodox Aurangjeb, no Moghul Emperor had undergone the circumcision. [Quoted from Bahishkrit Bharat by Raosahib Kasbe, “Hindu Muslim Prashna…” p.36]
How Kashmir became a Muslim country
But who was this Shahmera and how he became an officer in the court of King Suhadeva? :He was the son of one Ratanju, whose details are given in an article by Santram. From the story, though he is said to have no religion or nationality, it seems he was a Buddhist as he was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim, and must have been considered of low caste as he was not acceptable to the pundits of Kashmir as a ruler. The story runs as follows
“In the thirteenth century, a boy of tender age by name Ratanju came to Kashmir. Somehow, he got a place in the court of king Sahadeva and reached a high rank. He had neither any religion nor any nationality of his own. Moulana Mohammed Kazam Muradabadi writes in his history book, that Ratanju had a great love for the Hindu religion. He wanted to embrace it. But the Hindus were not ready to accept him in their society. He used to listen to the story of Gita every day from the pundits.
“One day the pundit, while explaining him the meaning of verse 47 of chapter 18, told him that it is fearful to accept another man’s better religion and one must not leave ones own religion though it had many disabilities. On this Ratanju asked, ‘Can I not join your religion?’ The pundit said ‘Absolutely not’. Getting disappointed by this reply, Ratanju resolved to accept the religion of the person, whom so ever he will see first one in the morning. One Muslim fakir, by name Bulbulshah, got to know the decision of Ratanju. Next morning he went to the palace of Ratanju. On seeing him Ratanju came down and asked him, ‘Would you accept me in your religion?’
” ‘The door of Islam is open to all human beings. A prominent political officer wishes to become my brother in religion (dharma bandhu). What could be the more pleasing thing for me other than this’, replied Bulbulshah. Ratanju became Muslim. His son Shahamir usurped the throne and brought home forcibly the queen Kona, wife of king Sahadeva’s son. But the queen committed suicide by stabbing herself. It is said, those pundits, who refused to become Muslims, were put in gunny bags and drowned in river Jehlam by Ratanju and Shahamir. The place in Shrinagar where they were drowned, is famous even now by the name of ‘watta mazaar’.” [Santram, Sarita Mukta Reprint series, (Hindi) vol. 8, p.162.]
Thus we see that because the leaders of perpetrators of inequality did not consider even the people of high ability who have gained prominence on account of their bravery and heroism, fit to become kings unless they are born in a higher caste.
A similar thing happened in Maharashtra in the 17th century, when king Shivaji was refused by the brahmins of Maharashtra to be coronated as a king because of low caste. One shudders to think, what would have been the fate of India, had Shivaji met somebody like Bulbulshah that time.
Similar is the story of Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur in late 19th century when he was insulted by the priest on account of caste, and his insult was accentuated by the so-called ‘national’ lobby of the great “Lokamanya” from Poona supporting the cause of the priest against the Maharaja. Fortunately for the Hindus, Shahu did not turn to Islam or Christianity, he turned to Arya Samaj, which he thought, rather naively, was a remedy of ills of Brahmanism. He also strongly supported “Satya Shodhak” Movement started by Mahatma Jotirao Phule and also brought forward Dr Ambedkar and presented him to the Dalits as their leader. The movement started by Shahu later gave rise to a powerful “Non- brahmin Party” which grew in prominence till the early 30s when Gandhiji got it merged in Congress.
The above-mentioned article of Sarita, mentions two more stories of religious leaders of Hindus refusing to accept meritorious lower caste people to Hinduism and give them equal status. Thus we see the refusal of a low caste prominent political personality like Ratanju by the Brahmins of Kashmir, led to the propagation of Islam in Kashmir with all further complications, for which all further generations of Indians may thank the Pundits of Kashmir of those times.


Source – ambedkar.org