1. INTRODUCTION:

Jammu and Kashmir have been a matter of dispute since 1947. The bifurcation of Kashmir which took place between India and Pakistan has resulted not only in the division of land but has wider implications as people were also divided under unfavourable circumstances, and the consequence was the emergence of certain ideologies which turned into a conflict. It was the beginning of a new era which would ultimately usher the Indian nation to dissolve of the very concept of State in the year 2019 and hence lead to the formation of new Union territory in India, which is also alleged as India occupied Kashmir, on 31^st October (Kumar, 2019), and this change of status also remains as a new matter of debate.

The conflict begins with the accession of Jammu and Kashmir itself. Unlike the other provinces which became a part of the Dominion of India by virtue of being part of British India, when it comes to Princely states, especially with the crises over Kashmir. It was based on the need of defence to protect the borders of Kashmir from the armed tribesman of Pakistan. Raja Hari Singh, the then Ruler of Kashmir, acceded to India on certain conditions according to which India will have control over communication, external affairs and defence and the rest will remain within the autonomy of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1939 (Kumar, 2019).

The translation of this agreement in the Constitution of India became Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. These provisions were a part of itself and hence has held a great stature in the lives of Kashmiri people. This stature goes beyond any political identity and enters into a realm of society and culture within the discourse of identity. The politics of identity has gained recognition and holds a much-debated position in contemporary politics.

The emerging forms of Kashmiriyat is the outcome of the conflict, which has been a common occurrence in Kashmir since 1947. It developed a politics in the Valley for which no obvious solution could be seen. There has been continuous extermination of the provisions provided by the Government of India during accession. It began during the time of Sheikh Abdullah, the first Prime minister of Kashmir and has started a chain reaction which never stopped. What we witness now is a further bifurcation of the State in two union territories, that is, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

After the accession to India, Kashmir enjoyed autonomy in the significant parts of its political scenario. There were questions and protests, but it was basically the result of the change that the people of Kashmir were going through, it was a process of evolution and the formation of a new distinct identity.

Under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, Kashmir was under an authority that the people could identify with, they had their own Prime minister, their own representative. There were certain demands that the Government of India had agreed upon, and the most important one was the State autonomy. As this was neglected by the Government of India, it created a gap in the minds of Kashmiri people towards the intention of India and the perception of the ‘other’ widened. Hence the ‘behavioural motivations’ started to be driven against India. As Wendt says an actor only knows what he wants when he has developed a sense of identity and when he knows who he is, and by this time the people of Kashmir had already established that they are Kashmiris and not Indians, and hence their actions were driven against the Indian nation.

This gradual development led to the building of a separate identity until 1965, and that’s when the State of Kashmir may have started to encounter anarchy. With the status of Prime Minister being taken away and Sheikh Abdullah accepting to be a Chief Minister after spending years in the jail, people realised that there is actually no leadership supporting them. Hence they perceived that the Government is against the notions of what they believe in, and the result is anarchy. It is important to also take into account the fact that after Sheikh Abdullah, when Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed as the Prime Minister, it was considered to be a political trick that the Indian Government had played in order to govern over the area. It changed what people meant to achieve from the notion of kashmiriyat. This negative collective self-image with the help of external factors transformed into the insurgency in 1990s and ever since it kept on moulding its form, as Wendt puts it “culture just lurks behind interest”.

To look at the proximate motivational behaviour, Wendt says that, “beliefs that actors actually have about how to meet their identified needs,” it depends on their “preferences” and “tastes”. In the evolution, post the governance of Sheikh Abdullah, people took up arms, and it was not just the gun they used, people who couldn’t have access to weapons picked up stones to show their preference towards violence as a method to deal with their interests. This preference as a result of specific security needs and according to Wendt that “in the long run a persistent failure to bring subjective interests into line with objective ones will lead to an actor’s demise”(Wendt, 1992).

Article 370 acted as a backbone of the idea of Kashmiriyat. It can be said that it gave birth to the concept of Kashmiriyat as the slow death of provisions of this Article led to the grievances, which called for a separate identity. The identity remains a controversial factor as it has a different meaning to different people based on the base of religion, occupation, location and many other socio-cultural and political factors. This study aims to explore the relationship between article 370 and the people of Kashmir and explore how the connection has led to the formation of Kashmiriyat and its different forms. It shall also discover the factors that are responsible for the different perception of Kashmiriyat and its implications and effects on the ongoing politics in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in Kashmir.

3. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:

Kashmiriyat is a concept whose meaning is very much dependent on the person addressing it. The meaning associated with it not only differs outside the boundaries of State but also within Kashmir itself. Its significance is different for a common man and for a politician. Even within the framework of the general public, its value differs.

Within the arena of the general public, a businessman and a watchman may have different opinions about what Kashmiriyat means to them. It could be the poetry of Haba Khatoon for someone and for the other person it could be the history of Kashmir, it can be Paper Mache artefacts or the busy streets of Dal lake, it can be the apple industry or a pashmina shawl or even a cup of Kehwa (Kashmiri tea). This study aims to reflect on these factors which build a persona of what Kashmiriyat is and how this concept is so open that everyone frames it according to their favourite story. In political realms, kashmiriyat has held a problematic position rather. It could mean Azadi (independence) for a section of people, and for the other, it could mean seclusion. The question that remains is where do we draw the line?

This study aims to try to answer that question keeping the political and cultural history of Kashmir in mind. To explain this amalgamation of politics and culture, 370 is an ideal case study in order to bring out the constitutional difference of Kashmir and how it has preserved the Kashmiriyat along with its various interpretations.

3.1. Research questions

1. Is kashmiriyat a religion based on ideology or political?

2. How far has Article 370 preserved the distinct identity of Kashmiriyat?

3. Is article 370 an antagonist or a protagonist of this story?

3.2 Objectives of the study

· To understand and analyse the role of Article 370 in the identity formation of Kashmiri people.

· To estimate the significance of 370 for a minority.

· Muslims are a minority in India and Hindus are a minority in Kashmir. How does the majority and minority concept affect the situation?

· To analyse the aftermath of 370 and its effects on Kashmiriyat.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

This research follows a qualitative methodology and an analytical approach through a study of primary and secondary sources. This approach helps to understand different paradigms, interpretations of evidence and helps to reflect on implications and inferences. The study primarily focuses on secondary sources such as government documents, articles, journals, scholarly articles, newspaper reports in order to get a conceptual and critical perspective. The primary source would be interview-based which would follow open-ended questions in order to gain perspective of the minds of the Kashmiris.

Qualitative observation helps in systematic observation of primary and secondary data and gives scope for a deep and thorough understanding of a broader picture. This study aims to use concepts like constructivism, imagined communities, mimicry to explain the identity politics with special reference to Alexander Wendt’s article “Anarchy is What States Make of it”, and Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities”.

5. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS:

This study aims to develop an understanding regarding the relevance of Kashmiriyat on the ongoing crisis in Kashmir and how this idea of a distinct identity has been perceived by various people who are associated with the Valley of Kashmir. It would explore into the aspects of Kashmiriyat itself and how its various interpretations have kept on changing with respect to time and circumstances and hence managed to survive. Further, Article 370 shall be weighed against this notion of a distinct identity and how far has the agency of Article 370 led to the survival of various types of Kashmiriyat. This relationship will be examined critically, and its validity shall be tested.

This study aims to achieve a broader perspective into the aims and aspirations of the people of Kashmir. It is not comprehensible to reach every voice that is in the Valley of Kashmir, and it limits the accomplishments of the objective of the study. There are various factors such as Political, Social, Cultural, Economic etc., and this study limits itself to the cultural aspects of Kashmir and their connection with Article 370 as it has not been looked at as a cultural artefact. It restricts itself to the cultural aspect of what it is to be a Kashmiri and how Article 370 has been an integral part of it.

6. THE ORIGIN OF KASHMIRIYAT AND ITS AFTERMATH:

The idea of a distinct identity arises due to various factors, it gives birth to a certain form of nationalism in opposition to the ‘other’, and even if not in opposition, it aims to run parallel to other dominant forms of narratives. Kashmiriyat was an ideology formed in order to counter the Dogra rulers through the 1930s. They were decedents of Hindu Rajputs and spoke a completely different language, known as Dogri. It started as a political movement led by Muslims against the rule of the Dogras and eventually transformed into an identity which would encompass all religious identities and elope them under a single concept of Kashmiriyat. Starting as a political issue, it turned out to be famous propaganda for political groups. Its gaining popularity can be seen in the transformation of the Muslim Conference into the All-Jammu and Kashmir National Conference. The relevance of this event is the changing perception for each of us. It was not a communal fight against an oppressive rule but, rather territorial, in which all religious communities would come together under their common language and culture. It became a much diverse and powerful force. When people realise their uniqueness due to a common culture or language they promote, the meaning of this uniqueness changes with respect to each individual. To note that the territorial boundaries of Kashmir were not the result of lines drawn on a map by taking certain ethnic and religious groups, but it was an accidental scribble on the map when Gulab Singh, was the first Sikh who fought the Anglo-Sikh war. He bought the current Kashmir Valley for Rs 7.58 million. His son, Ranbir Singh, extended the limits to what is now known as Jammu and Kashmir (Arakotaram, n.d.). The State itself survived until the region was under British rule after the British uprising in India in 1857. Its creation was an important part of Kashmir's early history. It was the dominant rule of the Dogras that somehow united all religions of Kashmir under the umbrella of Kashmiriyat. The Kashmiri population was subjugated under the Dogra rule for about 80 years from (1857-1931) which allowed Abdullah and the Kashmiri nationalists the opportunity to cast the Dogras as foreign oppressors and illegitimate rulers (Arakotaram, n.d.). Their behaviour was the same towards all religions alike. They treated Jammu as their own territory, and Kashmir Valley was treated like a conquered territory. All the high posts were taken by the Dogra population, and the highly educated Kashmiri pandits were restricted to the jobs of the clerics. Their economic policies restricted the growth and development of other sections of the society and hence acted as perfect propaganda to stand united against. By this time, a separate identity formation was bound to take place, and it was under Sheikh Abdullah that it gained its momentum.

This is not the only picture of identity formation that was taking place in the Valley of Kashmir. There was a Muslim political mobilisation in 1905 led by Rasul Shah, known as the Mirwaiz-i-Kashmir (Arakotaram, n.d.). For the first time, the Muslim population of Kashmir was united under a single Muslim leader. Though it started as a religious movement, it took within its purview the economic and political aspects as well. It aimed at the greater representation of Muslims in major departments and land reforms. It was a call for a revolution within the community, and this revolutionary feeling evolved simultaneously with a need for a separate identity. This was an important event in the rise of Kashmiri nationalism. As shown above, it didn’t remain a religious ideology, yet the onset was bathed in the communal colours. After the Mirwaiz, another important Muslim political movement took place in 1931(Arakotaram, n.d.). A series of events in Jammu on July 13^th led to the demolition of a mosque and desecration of Quran and led to a declaration by the religious leaders that Islam is under attack. The Dogra regime suppressed the uprising brutally, and it led to the formation of the All-India Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference. The growing popularity of such movements led Hindu leaders, both Dogras and Pandits, fear Muslim domination and hence Pandits became hostile to the Muslim community even though they were in favour of them against the suppressive rule of the Dogras.

There was growing unrest in the Valley, and at the same time, the exchange of thoughts was happening between Pandit Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah. He urged Abdullah that the nature of their party should be made secular rather than based on religion if Abdullah is aspiring to have a mass movement. Nehru arranged a meeting with Abdullah and asked him to turn his ideology and his party into a nationalist movement. This would require a mass mobilisation for this, an identity had to be created which would act as a core for the coming together of masses of all religions, caste and creed. He acted along the same lines, and on March 26^th, 1938 opened the membership of the Muslim Conference to all people of Kashmir who were against the regime’s oppressive policies towards the Valley of Kashmir. The ideology that came about was Kashmiriyat which defined political loyalty in terms of territory and culture, and only the people who shared this aspect were to be included. It did succeed in bringing the people of Kashmir together, but the people of Jammu, Muslims as well as Pandits, were alienated. This resulted in an ideological gap which is still a prominent factor when it comes to the politics of Jammu and Kashmir. The validity of Kashmiriyat was obtained through tracing historical texts and the most significant amount them was written by Kalhana in 1149, known as Rajatarangini. By using this book as a source of history, political leaders traced the history of Kashmiri people over the past 2000 years (Arakotaram, n.d.). Though this was debated by many historians, but it did not stop this narrative from flourishing and becoming a driving force which would dominate the politics of the Valley from that point onwards. The idea was propagated through newspapers, magazines, in mosques and political rallies. It was a full-fledged movement which sought to be recognised as a will of the people of the Valley and a prophecy which was long written and waiting to be fulfilled. The Kashmiri nationalism that first started as a religious-based movement was now accumulating the colour of various religions under its purview. The meaning of kashmiriyat had started to get diversified based on who was addressing it and for what purpose, and at that point of time, it was all political.

In 1944, the aspirations of this movement were translated into a document known as Naya Kashmir (Arakotaram, n.d.). It touched upon the basic aspects such as citizenship, basic rights and obligations, Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly and Meetings, Street Processions and Demonstrations. It also covered National Assembly, The Council of Ministers of the State, The Ruler of Kashmir, Electoral System, Court Systems, Local Administration, National Languages, Amendments to the Constitution and National Economic Plan (Teng, Bhatt, Kaul, 1977). It advocated for a Constitutional monarchy, the abolition of Jagir system, and greater opportunities for non-Dogras in the administrative fields. It reflected the aspirations of both the Muslims as well as the Pandits of the Valley and hence gained popular support. It was the seed of Kashmiriyat that made the formulation of this document possible which worked on a territorial basis and succeeded in creating an identity which people of all religions, caste and creed could identify with and hence a wider acceptance of this document was made possible, which also explains its popularity and significance. But this alone was not enough to meet the ends of the movement. The need of the hour was a famous face whose words and voice was capable of moving the masses. The major step in this was the Quit Kashmir speech made by Sheikh Abdullah in the year 1946. This speech was not devoid of the Islamic tinge, which was the base of the formation of Muslim conference before it changed its name to National Conference and its nature to secular. It appealed to the masses to fight slavery and ‘enter the field of Jihad as soldiers’, but at the same time was addressed to Muslims and Pandits alike. This moment coincided with the Quit India moment. Rather, it was actually inspired by it. It is apparent in the speech of Sheikh Abdullah that the Quit India and Quit Kashmir movements were treated to be alike based on the fact that they were both fighting against an oppressive rule. Abdullah drew on this analogy and expressed that the will of the people in the plebiscite must be called for. The turn of events quite flowed in the opposite direction. Instead of being an independent country, Kashmir had to accede to India. After the independence from the Imperial powers, Kashmir like other princely states was given an option to either accede to India or Pakistan. Since Kashmir was a Muslim majority state, Pakistan believed that it rightfully must align with them, but the close ties of Abdullah with Nehru made them suspicious of his intentions. As a result of an attack on Poonch by the Pakistani forces, it the Maharaja had to seek aid from India as his army was not strong enough to counter the attack. It owed to which, the infamous accession of Kashmir to the Union of India took place. According to the Instrument of Accession, Maharaja would declare his accession to the Dominion of India and specify that the Government of India will have its control over certain aspects only that includes 1) Defence 2) External Affairs 3) Communications 4) Ancillary and these functions are vested in the Government by or under the Government of India Act,1935. He would accede to the Dominion by an assurance that the Ruler of the State whereby functions in relations to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of the State. Also, the terms of this instrument cannot be changed by any amendment to the act or of the Indian Independence Act,1947 unless such amendment is accepted by the Ruler (Hari Singh) by an ‘instrument that is supplementary to this one’. The Government is not empowered by this instrument to acquire any land in Jammu and Kashmir, but the Ruler can transfer it to them at a request on terms “as may be agreed or in default of agreement determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India”, if necessary. The instrument does not give any commitment to accept any future constitution of India or to fetter the discretion of the Ruler to enter into an arrangement with the Government of India under any such “future Constitution”. This instrument assures the sovereignty of the Ruler over the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Instrument of Accession plays an important role in understanding the psyche of the Maharaja at that point of time. He was helpless against the attack on his territory and yet aimed to maintain autonomy in his governance. His fear of the Pakistani invasion could also be connected to the growing unpopularity of his rule among the Muslim population and Kashmiri Pandits alike. It was probably the safest option for him to form an alliance with a Hindu dominated state which would assure his right to governance rather than Pakistan which might have neglected his claim to the throne. It is resonated in the instrument which assures the sovereignty of the Ruler over the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

After the accession, Nehru allowed the authority of the National conference to be under Sheikh Abdullah. He was a popular figure in terms of his political ventures and hence was the most suitable candidate to lead the population. Though Nehru had ties with him before the onset of this period, but that did not have much impact on how the politics of the Valley was going to turn out to be. Abdullah pushed for greater Kashmiri autonomy, and Nehru was not willing to negotiate over this cause. Abdullah argued that the people of Kashmir must be the only determiners of their destiny and hence a plebiscite must occur so that people would decide which country they aim to be allied with. India was fearful that Kashmir would accede to Pakistan due to its Muslim majority and therefore such demands were tried to be kept at bay. He was jailed for treason in 1953. This resulted in protests in Jammu and Kashmir which ultimately led to the death of many Kashmiri. From that point onwards Kashmir stepped in an atmosphere to discontent which was irreparable. It led to sporadic violence over the next ten years, including riots in 1955 and 1957.

Kashmir from the onset of its accession to India has seen many phases of revolt, and eventually, these revolts changed into an everlasting state of anarchy that we are witnessing in the present time scenario. The idea of what it is to be a Kashmiri transformed from 1948 to 1965, and it gave birth to a different understanding of Kashmiriyat. Now the definition of who is a Kashmiri is not restricted to the geographical area, but the aftereffect of various sociopolitical events that happened during this period of time. As Wendt puts it that identity is not “a unitary phenomenon susceptible to general definition”, but there are various kinds of identities that tell us “who or what actors are” and “what actors want”. In the Kashmir issue, the actors are the majority Muslim population of Kashmir and what actors wanted to be the plebiscite to happen, the moment from where it all began, to the present time scenario where the goal has slightly transformed, the essence being the same, that is, to decide where and how to draw the borderline ( Wendt, 1992).

They know that the Government of India would not allow of it; hence the goal flickers from Azadi to autonomy. Here the idea of collective self-esteem comes in, as Wendt says “a group’s need to feel good about itself, for respect or status”, that largely depends upon the “collective self-images” as positive or negative, which is again governed by the relationship it has with the ‘significant other’ (Wendt, 1992). The connection that Kashmir shares with India is basically of a negative self-image, which is a result of perceived disrespect or contempt by others and might prompt states to make compensations by “self-assertion and/or devaluation and aggression toward the “Other”. Hence, we see the emergence of insurgency and a dark curtain of anarchy which engulfs Kashmir, and no one knows how to lift it.

After the accession to India, Kashmir enjoyed autonomy in the large parts of its political scenario. There were questions and protests, but it was basically the result of the change that the people of Kashmir were going through, it was a process of evolution and the formation of a distinct identity. Under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, Kashmir was under an authority that the people could identify with, they had their own Prime Minister, their own representative. There were certain demands that the Government of India had agreed upon, and the most important one was the State autonomy. After the same was neglected by the Government of India, it created a gap in the minds of Kashmiri people towards the intention of India and the perception of the ‘other’ widened. Hence the ‘behavioural motivations’ started to be driven against India. As Wendt says, an actor only knows what he wants when he has developed a sense of identity and when he knows who he is. By this time, the people of Kashmir had already established that they are Kashmiris and not Indians, and hence their actions were driven against the Indian nation.

We see this gradual development in the building of a separate identity till 1965, and that’s when the State of Kashmir may have started to encounter anarchy. With the status of Prime Minister being taken away and Sheikh Abdullah accepting to be a Chief Minister after spending years in the jail, people realised that there is actually no rule or leadership supporting them. Hence, they perceived that the Government is against the notions of what they believe in, and the result is anarchy. We need to also take into account the fact that after Sheikh Abdullah, when Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed as the Prime Minister, it was considered to be a political trick that the Indian Government had played in order to govern over the area. It changed what people meant to achieve from the notion of Kashmiriyat. This negative collective self-image with the help of external factors transformed into the insurgency in the 1990s and ever since it kept on moulding its form, as Wendt puts it “culture just lurks behind interest”. If we talk about the proximate motivation for behaviour, Wendt says that “beliefs that actors actually have about how to meet their identified needs,” it depends on their “preferences” and “tastes”. If we see the evolution post the governance of Sheikh Abdullah, people took up arms, and it was not just the gun they used, people who couldn’t have access to arms picked up stones to show their preference towards violence as a method to deal with their interests. This preference as a result of certain security needs and according to Wendt that “in the long run a persistent failure to bring subjective interests into line with objective ones will lead to an actor’s demise” (Wendt, 1992).

The plebiscite Front which was formed in 1955 and officially launched in 1958 was a direct result of removal of Sheikh Abdullah from the post of Prime Minister, and it continued to operate as a direct opposition to the Government headed by the Prime Ministers who came after Abdullah. Somewhere the chair of Prime Minister was a direct reference in Kashmiri minds of having autonomy, and once threatened the notion of the ‘other’ developed and got emphasised to such an extent that anarchy paved its way in. In 1975 when Sheikh Abdullah returned people didn’t see the Prime Minister who was the representative of the identity and culture of Kashmir but a Chief Minister who had made his peace with the idea of Kashmiriyat being diluted. The politics had changed, and Kashmir ushered into a new era that kept on gaining momentum and which still exists.

7. THE CULTURAL STUDY OF ARTICLE 370:

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is the translation of the Instrument of Accession in legal and documented terms. Though its entry in the Constitution of India happened on 17^th October 1949, it was not a new concept to the people of Kashmir. It was during 1927 that Maharaja Hari Singh formulated the law of ‘Hereditary state subject’ as per which, people who were not residents of Jammu and Kashmir could not hold offices in the state services or hold immovable property in the State. The history of this law is based on the lack of educational reforms in Kashmir, and hence administrators were being called from other states like Punjab to occupy the positions. Maharaja Hari Singh focussed on educational reforms during his rule, and a significant amount of educated Kashmiri population came to the forefront. The Dogra Sardar Sabha and the upper-class Hindus made a demand in late 1926 that such a law must exist in order for the State to grow on its own pace and for the welfare of the people of Jammu and Kashmir (Jamwal S.S, 1993). These positions benefited the population who asked for it, and emerging population of the Muslim elite was left behind, and they too started demanding a share in the top positions of the State. This led to the emergence of the Muslim Conference, as discussed before.

From its emergence in the year 1927, it can be seen that this law emerged as the need of the hour. The aim was to reserve the resources of the land of Jammu and Kashmir for its own people so that the people from outside the State who had access to a wider spectrum of knowledge might not dominate this part of the map too and hence alienate its own population from the benefits that the land has to offer. It is logical for a ruler to think about the welfare for its own people rather than other states with which he shares no connection to and a fear of cultural hegemony always lingers the mind of a force which is less powerful in any area. The field of education was a similar phenomenon, and it shows why the Maharaja would have made the educational policies a priority. The Primary Education Act of 1930 made primary education free and compulsory and the funds to meet the same was from the Government exchequer. His reforms were not restricted to form a workforce for the State but to educate people and make them aware of the social evils in the society such as female infanticide and child marriage. The appointment of Education Reorganisation Committee of 1939 put into light the problems in the education system and accordingly suggested the solutions by analysing the primary and secondary education of the State. This was the landmark which resulted in the idea of preserving the provisos offered by the State and its land for the people who live there.

When Kashmir acceded to India with other princely states, they eventually signed a merger with India, but the same was not asked for the State of Kashmir. Instead, Article 370 became the link which connected India with Kashmir. It offered stability to the people of Kashmir by assuring that they shall maintain their regional autonomy, and hence their identity will be preserved. Jammu, on the other hand, had a different opinion all together as it advocated for the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. The reasons for this difference of opinion could be contributed to the politics which was taking place in the Valley during 1920s and 1930s and which was also a pioneer of the emerging ideology of Kashmiriyat. India, as a nation, was based on the pilgrims of democracy and hence this will of its people held utmost importance. Due to this reason, the Government of India advocated that the will of the people must be put before the decision of the respective Maharaja or the Nawab of a place. Therefore, in case of Kashmir, a plebiscite was decided to take place under the UNO (United Nations Organisation) but never put to action, and the special status of Kashmir continued as it was born, but soon a series of execution of its took place in future. It is important to note that the accession of Kashmir to India did not happen under normal circumstances as it did with respect to the other Princely states. It was a result of an act of self-defense, and so was the actual essence of the accession. Yet it was welcomed as more than that by the people of Jammu of Kashmir and its Government; it was uniting the two lands but, on the terms, put forth by both the parties with utmost importance. The perception which article 370 gave to the National Conference or the Valley was not only safety of its boundaries from any foreign attacks but also of a regional safety which would help the Valley in maintaining its district culture while experiencing unity with the Indian Union. But, such thoughts are often realities which are not to be experienced and rather being read about and imagined, that it exists till a person realises that the pages are empty. As Noorani in his book ‘Article 370: A constitutional history of Jammu and Kashmir’ has put forth that the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was nothing more than a blank canvas and was ‘eroded’ by ‘conscious executive acts’ to an extent where ‘only the shell’ had remained.

The addition of Article 370 was treated by Nehru as a ‘complete integration’ of Jammu and Kashmir with the India Union. But this view was contradicted by many in the Constituent assembly. According to Nehru, the Constitution of India needed not to be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir for its total integration and in his own words he said in the Lok Sabha on June 26 and August 7, 1952 that “it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion” (Tembhurne, 2019). Patel and Ambedkar on the other hand were among the people who were not fully satisfied with the decision of Nehru on his policy regarding Kashmir. According to Ambedkar in his speech of 10^th October 1951, which is reproduced in Ambedkar’s Writings, Vol. 14, Part Two, Kashmir and East Bengal were crucial points for India and Kashmir should be divided with respect to its religious population between India and Pakistan to prevent the crisis which took place in the East Bengal. It would be wrong to say that these were the only two opinions on the Special status of Jammu and Kashmir, but it does reflect on the polarisation of opinions which was happening at that point of time. It was not an easy decision to make about the future of Kashmir with respect to India as thinkers had their opinion, and most of them were not wrong with their reasoning. Probably this is the point where Nehru stood taller than the others. He realised that it has to be the will of the people in Jammu and Kashmir who had to play the major role and as defence was the need of the hour and stability was a requirement such a provision would keep the dissent at bay and hence might lead to a true integration later.

The negotiations happened in the time frame of May - October 1949. Sheikh Abdullah joined the Constituent Assembly of India and corresponded with Gopalaswamy Ayyangar who was a part of these constitutional negotiations. The exchange that took place between both the parties was more of a tug of war, and the aim was who could pull the draft more onto their sides. In this case, it shows how Ayyangar succeeded with his force and somehow resulted in the unilateral amendment of the draft text by him despite Abdullah’s protests regarding the same (Ankit.R, 2012). After the State of Jammu and Kashmir formed its own constituent assembly to frame its own Constitution, the contradicting desires of two parties came into play, that is, Nehru and

Sheikh Abdullah and both the ends were trapped in the imagined idea of welfare of their people and their State. This is an important feature of this exchange that both the sides treated themselves as a different entity from the very beginning and the acceptance of demands by both the parties were kept to a certain level in order to prevent the overpowering of the other. What took place was a negotiation process that remained so and not integration. It might be argued that Article 370 is a reflection of this negotiation. The circumstances leading to full acceptance and adherence of Article 370 might have actually resulted in an integration. Nehru was aiming at the Kashmir’s ‘closer integration’ with India, and Sheikh Abdullah was determined to preserve the autonomy of it, and there was a point when both of these aspects collided (Ankit, 2012). Noorani, in his book Article 370: A constitutional history of Jammu and Kashmir’ shows this divergence before and after the Delhi Agreement of July 1952. The period which succeeded this was of turmoil and sordid governance in the state. Sheikh Abdullah went through 12 years of imprisonment, and control of the state was taken over by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq and others who were unpopular in the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. Their rule is perceived to be a rather tyrannical one by the Kashmiri population as they are perceived as pawns of the Government of India who gave away the provisions of autonomy which Abdullah had fought for. It was followed by the Indira-Sheikh Accord of 1975 which was a turning point in the politics of the Valley. A J Noorani has mentioned it ‘as fundamental error of law’ and ‘harmful to Kashmiri rights and interests’ having ‘neither legal efficacy nor moral worth’. The accord retained Article 370, not its original form, and reduced the State to Constituent unit of the Union of India. The Government of India now had control over anything that they assume or call a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. As this threat cannot be described within a fixed bar and highly depends on the perception of the person, this aspect makes it really dangerous. This ambiguity makes this clause as a tool of control, and the illusion of autonomy that Article 370 provides is rendered defenceless. It means that the Union of India would now interfere in any matter of Jammu and Kashmir by claiming that it is a treat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.

Its immediate result was the death of a plebiscite front that was founded by Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beigh in the 1950s. The plebiscite which was promised never took place and hence autonomy was instead a replacement offer. But one cannot claim that it would be the choice of every individual. Thus, there was dissent in the name of the plebiscite front. The grant of autonomy was not the end of the negotiations, and it kept on altering, Indira-sheikh accord is one such example. The brutal curb of dissent became a phenomenon in the Valley of Kashmir, and its repercussions were not only increased in dissent but rather resorting to violence in order to achieve the end. This widened the gap between the people of Kashmir and the Government of India. The idea of other that was in its infant stage during the rule of Sheikh was now dominating the minds of the people in the Valley, and it is due to the popularity of this phenomenon that Article 370 become even more significant. It became more than a Constitutional right and rather perceived as a right to identity, which provided the people in Valley with as psychological security. Dulat has put forth this perspective in his book, and he has emphasised on the journey which India has taken with respect to Kashmir and what has been its outcome since 1947 crossing several milestones during 1952, 1953, 1975, 1980, 1987, 2001 and in 2014. By uptil now, there is nothing special left to the article 370, but it still acts as a ‘fig leaf’ for the population in Kashmir, hence the need to revoke it is not urgent (Dulat, 2015). There are many questions about the historical events and what might have happened if it had not followed the course which it did. Dulat has also raised questions, and it begins right from the moment when Sheikh Abdullah was sent to jail. These are the questions we cannot have an answer to.

There exists a conflict as old as independence itself; it shows us that it is this cultural and distinct identity of being a Kashmiri which has affected its position in national politics. What if Kashmir still had a Prime Minister and its regional autonomy, would the situation be different? The answer to this question till now exists only in theories that people keep on debating but without a consensus. The reason behind this could be that the Kashmiri identity either poses a threat to one party or it functions in the favour of the other. Wendt describes the same as “the meaning of anarchy at the international level or power and interests distribution among states depend in important part upon the perceptions they hold of one another or the shared ideas that constitute their identities and interests in the eye of others” (Wendt,1992). Hence the dispute on Kashmir remains as it is, and no one knows what could have been and what shall be.

The reality of Article 370 in the year 2020 is its demise in the year 2019. Whether it was Constitutional or not is out of the premise of the study. But to conclude, it would undoubtedly have an impact on the policies and politics of the Valley which would encompass gender, religion and other aspects of the society. It would not be wrong to say that the impact of the abrogation can be felt as Kashmir has been under lockdown for almost five months and that’s not even the whole picture. The materialisation of Kashmiri women has taken place in the comments of various BJP leaders and also by common folks across the country, and this aspect must not be ignored. The sensitivity towards Kashmir issue has become more of land and women as if it is a conquered world waiting to be explored. There is an urgent need to create awareness that by treating a part of one’s own country will never lead to integration but rather alienate both the sides even more.

The emotional safety of people of the Valley has already been threatened and under such circumstances, if the lynching of Kashmiri men outside the boundaries of the Valley, inappropriate comments on Kashmiri women and the hype created to buy land in Kashmir will have a detrimental impact. This would lead to a gap unlike India and Kashmir has seen since independence as it combines threat to identity with the threat to existence. If integration of the land had been a solution, the Government of India might never have accommodated Article 370 in the first place. The circumstances of accession were special with respect to Kashmir, and it has remained a special case ever since due to its specific demographics. Maybe the dilution of the demographics of Valley could be a solution but how Constitutional is that keep in mind that India is a democracy. Also, how significant is the culture in a global world?

8. LOCATING ARTICLE 370 WITHIN THE DISCOURSE OF KASHMIRIYAT:

Kashmir is also known as a paradise on the earth, yet this paradise has never seen an everlasting peace. It came in fractions and went away in a similar manner, but there is one thing which has always remained a reality. It is the Kashmiri culture and its celebration on various occasions, and for many people, it is known as Kashmiriyat. It is one constant factor which has stayed in the Valley and holds different meaning to a different individual. For a weaver, the making of Kashmiri carpets is his Kashmiriyat which includes preserving the culture in its own way. In a similar fashion, a Papermache artefact is Kashmiriyat and so is the Kashmiri language for a common man. In this section, the political implications of Kashmiriyat have been discussed which reflects on how Kashmiriyat is perceived as a separatist movement or freedom (Azadi). This chapter aims to explore the Kashmiriyat which lingers the roads of the Valley and how Article 370 has not only preserved it but also altered and shaped its meaning and perception.

As Benedict Anderson puts it ‘nationalism, are cultural artefacts of a particular kind’ (Anderson, 2016). Kashmir valley is surrounded by mountains that mark not only its territories but also its cultural boundaries. It does not only act as a boundary of demarcation but is rather a part of this cultural aspect of the Valley. Since Kashmir is a hilly area and it has highly contributed to its various cultural aspects such as dressing pattern, food habits, etc. which have eventually become a part of the distinct cultural identity of Kashmir. This distinct culture eventually contributed to the imagined community of Kashmir, which can also be framed as Kashmiri nationalism.

The gardens and lanes of the Valley speak of this tale itself as one walks through Shalimar Bagh, a site of Mughal architecture combined with men and women wearing Pheran (Kashmiri traditional dress) getting their pictures taken in between newly bloomed flowers. It is a common sight not only of Nishat Shalimar but also of most of the landscapes which constitute the Valley and the only difference being that instead of getting pictures taken, they might be grazing their sheep. In this case, nationalism is associated with ‘kinship’ as Anderson argued in his essay that nationalism is unlike secularism or fascism but rather such a concept must be attributed to factors like kinship or religion which holds true in this case (Anderson, 2016). To have the liberty to move on the mountains unhindered, to witness all the seasons and take pleasure of this landscape is Kashmiriyat to many.

If one takes a walk through any lanes, houses, functions and festivals, a smell of freshly cooked mutton by specific chefs known as Waza is a must presence. Kashmiri cuisine, due to the cold weather, is a distinct feature of Kashmir. It is combined with a salt flavoured tea called Nun chai and famous sweet tea known as kehva. This food culture of Kashmir is an integral part of their identity as no function would take place in its absence, be it a marriage celebration or mourning. Being able to have access to this cuisine every day and experiencing it by relishing ones taste buds with spices of Kashmir is Kashmiriyat to many.

If one takes a walk through the roads, he will witness huge tracts of land covered with saffron blooms or apple orchards. When the apple orchards bloom in spring, all the families would go to these lands with their share of food and celebrate the blooms like a new birth. Same also holds true for saffron blooms as people visit it often in the full moonlight when the rays dance on its petals, and people rejoice their harvest.

These traditional aspects which are highly influenced by its geography have built this community in a way that they have appreciated even before independence that the demographics must be maintained in order to preserve this distinctiveness. These small things are the most relevant reality of many souls, and it is their Kashmiriyat.

This natural beauty of the Valley with its specific culture has adopted tourism as an integral part of its identity. Tourism in Kashmir is a full-fledged industry which has attracted people not only from India but also abroad. It’s one of the main sources of income of the Valley and has contributed to cross-cultural exchanges. Though Kashmir has adopted foreign culture but not to an extent as is seen in the other parts of India, the reasons for this same could be the aspect of heritage and cultural hegemony. Kashmir from the very beginning has aimed to maintain autonomy not only in terms of its politics but culture also. In fact, culture and identity are the main factors which governed this struggle for autonomy as its aim. If a tourist rode a Shikara and made to dress like a Kashmiri in order to get authentic photographs for that moment, Kashmir becomes seemed to belong to him. There was seemed to be certain power in the attire and the concept of shikara floating in the Dal lake, having an essence of Kashmiriyat to it. As the tourist mimics the Kashmiri culture, he eventually becomes a part of it. What the tourist represent at that point of time is rather hybridity which is an amalgamation of Kashmiri culture and the culture of the nation or background to which the tourist belongs, and that would represent the kashmiriyat of the tourist through the course of his experiences (Babha, 2004). On a similar note, when that Shikara host goes back home and shares the stories of these tourists with his family, it becomes embedded in their cultural thoughts too. There has been a constant cultural exchange through tourism, and this spirit of tourism is Kashmiriyat to many.

Kashmiri artefacts not only held a dominant status in the lives of Kashmiri people and have enjoyed popularity in India but worldwide as well. Some of the known artefacts are of Papermache, Kangri (a hot pot used in winter), carpets, wicker, and many other small scale industries which have been under the limelight. The products that are made in Kashmir are sold at a relatively high price outside due to the authentic value associated with it as the production is limited. This has not only increased the monetary value of these cultural artefacts, but this monetary value has ensured their survival through the course of history. The makers of these artefacts also have developed a distinct identity with respect to the products that they make. Most of these are handicrafts which means that the artist shares a very close and personal link with their creation. The designs that are mostly crafted are either of Chinar leaves or Badaam (almond) and many others which are deeply rooted on the geographical and historical aspect of the valley. Hence an artist or a crafter is never devoid of the cultural heritage of Kashmir but is rather a propagator of the same, and hence the value of these surpass the monetary value and becomes a representation of identity and culture and therefore, is Kashmiriyat for many.

Pashmina shawl industry of Kashmir has also bloomed like the other handicrafts, and in many ways, it has surpassed the other industries. It is a piece of art and craft which is not only a symbol of luxury but also of love. It is a Kashmiri tradition that a bride must be sent to her husband’s house with a pashmina on her head. It encompasses various stories around it, and each shawl has a different experience as all of them are produced according to the occasion. Here the material becomes personal, and the cultural value which is associated with it becomes an integral part of its existence. Often a shawl continues to be passed on from one generation to other, and it remains as a family heirloom. The work on the Pashmina and its quality describes a tale which remains alive through time as people take that piece of cloth and pass it on as their heritage. It accedes its material value and transforms into a cultural artefact for the weaver, and the owner alike and hence is transformed into Kashmiriyat.

The small scale industries continued to grow, and hence the authenticity of the Kashmiri production remained the same. Since there is no mass production of the material culture of Kashmir, it remained unique, and a worker remained as the owner of his art and its value never decreased in this world of globalisation.

These are a few of many forms of Kashmiriyat that people practice in their day to day lives. Although it started off as a political movement that used cultural appeal in order to gain mass support but it becomes significant that this cultural aspect that people start to connect with becomes their collective identity. The experience which people of the Valley have had regarding its territoriality and what is inside within those boundaries have turned people into a community. This community is based on the ‘indefinitely stretchable nets of kinship and clientship’ (Anderson.B, 1983) and their existence within those communities with constant interaction with such cultural symbols and artefacts have actually created Kashmiriyat. It would be vague to say that Sheikh Abdullah came up with the connotations of Kashmiriyat in such a small period of time, it was actually a force which had already been present in the Valley since time immemorial and Abdullah only made it visible to the naked eye. Walking on the leaves of the fallen Chinar and hearing it crush that sends down chills in the very essence in a body cannot be taught and that rush is Kashmiriyat. What kashmiriyat is to a common man has a lot of twists and turns just like a person’s individuality. It is one’s personality and the reality of his existence which determines what Kashmiriyat would mean to an individual. Hence, to keep Kashmiriyat only limited to the framework of politics can be dangerous as it not only polarises the opinion of the people in the Valley but also affects the perception of Kashmiriyat outside the Valley.

It is important to analyse and bring into light the various aspects of Kashmiriyat other than political but the political concept cannot be neglected to its core as it has in many ways contributed to the access, availability and exercise of the personal aspect of Kashmiriyat. As the famous saying goes ‘personal is political’, and this personal aspect of Kashmiriyat is not something which has been under a curtain but is visible in every corner of the Valley. Kashmir has never experienced an everlasting peace or even a momentary peace which assures a relatively stable future. Rather it has been trapped in a loop around complete integration and autonomy. Article 370 has been prevalent in the Valley since 1927, which makes it an integral part of the reality of the lives of Kashmiri people. Its origin and aim which was the prosperity of the people of Kashmir which resonated in the laws of Raja Hari Singh and same is true for Article 370. It was not something that was granted to the people of Kashmir. Indeed, it was already in existence, and what the accession assured was its continuity. This is what makes the laws under this provision as significant as they were not demands but the ways in which people had spent their lives till now, and this includes the aspect of territoriality. Article 370 aimed to preserve the old lifestyle, which became a new law based on the idea of provisions. What is not taken into consideration is that these were not special provisions that were being granted but rather letting people keep what they already have and what they believed in. This matter, as simple as it sounds within these sentences, is a force which has led to violence and bloodshed but has also kept the hope alive in the hearts of Kashmiri people that as long as there is Article 370, no harm will reach upon their culture and demographics. This is the point where Kashmiriyat collides with Article 370. As the Valley of Kashmir has felt safer within the boundaries of its mountains, this Article was like an emotional safety which made a part of the Kashmiri population believe that the Indian Constitution has preserved their values and hence chances of an integration increases here. It was this territoriality which enabled the Kashmiri population to connect to their culture in a similar manner as did the people before them. Rather than going on the lines of how problematic the political aspect of Kashmiriyat might turn out to be, its integrative capability was highly neglected. Article 370 never remained what is was when it was first penned down, and as mentioned, it had become a hollow provision. The people of Kashmir have been aware of this, and there were demonstrations almost every time a change happened. For instance, the change of leadership from Prime Minister to Chief Minister and exclusion of Sadr-e-riyasat. But the bigger picture had always remained, which is the presence of the name of Article 370 in the Constitution of India. Autonomy was treated as a right, and its slow erosion was not seen as eradication of the unnecessary but instead eradication of individuality, and this individuality shared direct connection to an individual’s sense of Kashmiriyat. This autonomy is seen as the right to practice Kashmiriyat by a promise that things would not change. Moreover, it is important to realise that the integration of the land was never the solution. The name of Article 370 was enough for people of the Valley to believe that their power over their culture remains even if it was an illusion to some extent.

There is a significant effect of Article 370 on the perception of Kashmiriyat, especially outside the boundaries of Kashmir. The insurgency movement and the other ongoing politics and clashes in Kashmir have somehow succeeded to create a different perspective of kashmiriyat. The political Dominion of this ideology has been taken more into consideration and rather in an unacceptable way. The insurgency itself has been labelled as Kashmiriyat and Article 370 as a protector of the same. This has not only created a negative image of it but has also contributed to the portrayal of Kashmiriyat in opposition to Indian nationalism. In this case, Kashmiriyat is that aspect of Kashmiri nationalism which aims to eradicate the aspect of Indian nationalism. This has enabled the people outside Kashmir to portray Kashmiri people as separatist and anti-nationalist, which becomes a justification for their behaviour towards the people of Kashmir. Though it’s not the idea of every Indian citizen, it cannot be neglected that it is the point of view of many. Recently in Delhi, parents of a Delhi University student were not allowed to get a room in an OYO hotel and the reason being that they were from Kashmir. This incident was reported in many newspapers and internet platforms like The Print (Sirur, 2020). Another aspect of this is the adoption of violent means to showcase dissent, which has been labelled as Kashmiriyat containing separatist tendency This has also attracted the attention of many ordinary people and scholars alike, but it often neglected that there has been a warlike atmosphere in Kashmir ever since independence which has led to the continuation of the struggle for one's rights and it is a matter of time when dialogue does not work, and people pick up arms. Though actions of violence cannot be justified, one must understand the root of this violence. The assumption which was being made that the root cause of this Kashmiri nationalism or the separatist tendency or Kashmiriyat lies in Article 370, but the results which followed the abrogation of Article 370, prove it otherwise. To control that particular dissent army has been deployed and communication was curbed for a long time, and there was no access to the internet till Supreme Court argued that right to the internet is a fundamental right (Masoodi, 2020). If Article 370 was the cause of the separatist tendency, then why the Government of India has taken such extreme steps so that the voices of Kashmir do not escape the barriers of the Valley? The answer is complicated yet straightforward - Kashmiriyat is not a political ideology at its core, and it holds values of the People of Kashmir and that is the reason that dissent has escalated to a level that curbing it with some measures was the only option for the Indian Government. Abrogation of Article 370 has shown that the Article itself had never been an issue because if it were so, the positive effects of its demise would have been at least felt. Instead is the reality of this is that more alienation has taken place and the Delhi case can be cited as one such example. This alienation has taken place on both sides as the aspect of the other has widened. The comments on Kashmiri women and land already discussed reflects on the seriousness of the situation. Indeed this was not the integration that Nehru was aiming for.

The interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir in 2010 mentioned in the final report that the problems that Kashmir and India are having ‘stems’ from the ‘unresolved issues of political status and Centre-State relations’ and the word ‘temporary’ which contributed to ‘communal polarisation’ among the parties involved. Also, the political demands which flicker from Azadi to separation are due to the ‘woes of Kashmiri people’ regarding the ‘emasculation of the substance of its distinctive status enshrined in Article 370 of the Constitution of India'. The broad consensus that the committee came about was that the status of the Article should be upheld and its ‘erosion over the decades must be re-appraised to vest it with such powers as the State needs to promote the welfare of the people on its own terms’. This idea can be quoted to the reason why Raja Hari Singh came up with such a law in the first place and hence went hand in hand with the demands and aspirations of the Kashmiris. The recommendation that they came up with respect to Article 370 is that “Delete the word ‘Temporary ’from the heading of Article 370 and from the title of Part XXI of the Constitution. Replace it with the word ‘Special ’as it has been used for other States under Article 371 (Maharashtra and Gujarat); Article 371A (Nagaland); 371B (Assam); 371C (Manipur); 371D and E (Andhra Pradesh); 371F (Sikkim); 371G (Mizoram); 371H (Arunachal Pradesh); 371I (Goa)” (Padgaonkar, Kumar, Ansari, 2012). Though a certain emphasis and power has been given to the name of Article 370 in this study, the name has changed over the time from laws in times of the Maharaja to Article 306 and then Article 370. The reason for this was due to the fact that since it has been abrogated, it would now remain only as Article 370, which means that people in their minds would remember or memorize it as so. This was probably a possible solution in 2010, but it never saw daylight as it never gained any attention from the Government. This report also reflects on the point assumption that Article 370 was not the root cause of the problem but could have been a possible solution.

9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

There are multiple perceptions that people of Kashmir have developed regarding their identity in the light of ongoing political struggle which has been taking place in the Valley. It varies across age, gender, occupation and religion.

A 23 years old Kashmiri student, who is a Muslim described Kashmiriyat as “Kashmir, and its people are known for their welcoming and hospitable nature. While some people limit the meaning of the word to just that, it's much more expansive. It's about feeling connected to its people, and everything is done through the bottom heart, that sense of belonging that makes you do the best, and act the best for everyone and everything”. He further added that “I've always known about the fact of Kashmir being hospitable, so my first impression wasn't distant from its actual literal meaning”. His perception had not changed ever since even though he also mentioned that “It's etymology hasn't changed much. But people tend to take the freedom of understanding it in different ways” while talking about its relevance in the present-day context. He defined Article 370 as “giving a special status, autonomy, permission to have its own flag and constitution, formulate its own laws and prohibits non-residents from purchasing land in Kashmir”. For him, both these aspects of the reality of the Kashmiri lives did share a connection with one another as “in a sense, if the abrogation is aimed at a demographic shift, it'll have a significant affect if you look at the big picture. (that you should) ,” and in response to its impact, he believed that “contain the demography, have it unaffected.” He believed that Kashmiri culture is distinct in a way that “its rich history and heritage stands tall to testify for spirituality, elegance, panache and valour. Kashmir is a place where people from ages have been living and stood as an example of striving, loving, perseverance, dedication, resistance, dignity, and warm-heartedness”.

Another student from Kashmir, aged 22, a Sikh, said that “Kashmiriyat stands for great hospitality, harmony amongst the people of Kashmir, great culture”. He was made familiar with the word Kashmir “through the speech of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, he coined the slogan 'Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat, Kashmiriyat', which meant humanity, peace, and keeping the sanctity of the people of Kashmir. The first impression was that it got cemented on my psyche”. The perception of Kashmiriyat never changed for him and rather “it has strengthened with time”. To him, Article 370 is a “scrapped law that grants special status to Indian-administered Kashmir. Article 370 has led to the formation of union territory into three parts”. According to him Kashmiriyat and article 370 are entirely different as “Kashmiriyat stands for Kashmiri culture. It has nothing to do with the political spectrum of the state”, but he did believe that “abrogation of Article 370 will have an impact on its existence and its perception in many ways.” His distinct idea of Kashmiri culture was that “the State enjoys the presence of mix religions and that’s why Kashmir is famous for its cultural heritage. Its people being generous and kind to everyone in society.”

A member of the Trader’s federation of Shopian, aged 72, said that Kashmiriat stands for the phrase that “Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, isai hai bhai bhai” which means that Hindu, Muslim and Sikh population of Kashmir are brothers and live in a spirit of brotherhood. The first time when he got familiarised with the word Kashmiriyat was in the 1960s, and it stood for ‘territorial integrity’. According to him, it holds importance in the present day more than did anytime else and “it is essential, it is our identity, it shows brotherhood which is still prevalent, even though agencies tried to inflict harm upon it, but they were not successful. We must work for the recollection of this brotherhood again - guldasta jaisa the waist hi rehana chahiyai (this garden of roses must remain the way it was), prior to 89 or otherwise Kashmiriyat will die”. For him, Article 370 is “provision given by Maharaja and Hindu ministers by realising that Punjabis were getting almost all jobs in Jammu and Kashmir and foreign tourists were settling in, and it is harmful for the local people therefore to protect its population. It came into existence, mainly because Kashmir was economically back then and education was limited. So people might sell their land at the lowest price possible and hence he made this law for the welfare of the state and the office.” The connection that article 370 shares with Kashmiriyat to him were that “it will impact our culture in Kashmir.” He said that the Kashmiri culture is distinct as “insaniyet elements which is common in Kashmir makes it unique. If one sees a person in trouble, everyone on the road will run to his aid, and that is the spirit of Kashmir. In 2017 when an attack on Amarnath yatris took place, Kashmiri people donated their blood in order to save them. It is this brotherhood we live by, and it should be preserved like a treasure. ”

A Kashmiri housewife, age 35, when asked about what she thinks of Kashmiriyat said that it is “anything Kashmiri or belonging to Kashmiri culture”. She mentioned that it was through a newspaper in Kashmir by which she got to know about it, and the first thing that came to her mind is the “idea of Kashmir”. She further added that “I don’t know its exact meaning, but to me, it has remained so.” For her Article 370 is “Article that connects Kashmir to India” and she firmly believed that “Kashmiriyat and Article 370 have a connection, I don’t know in detail, but of course its abrogation will affect Kashmiriyat”. The distinctiveness of Kashmiri culture to her is that “Kashmir has been attributed to the qualities of a paradise. And it is a paradise because everything is unique about this place”.

A Kashmiri student, age 26, who never spent more than 2 months outside the Valley described Kashmiriyat as “a kin to humanity, apnapan (a sense of belonging)” and added that “I have heard it ever since I was born and initially it was just a word in my childhood, and it had no weightage, but as I grew up its shape and context took a different step on a different level.” For him, Kashmiriyat is relevant in the present day context as he said that“I am a Kashmiri if I have Kashmiriyat, means I have something that it is akin to humanity. To have it means to treat people with love and compassion”. His remarks on Article 370 are that it is “An article present in the big Constitution of India that gave use special Status till August 2019. Some of the main points pertaining to it were as: No person living outside the State of Kashmir could buy any plot of land in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Before any investment / industrial structure, they needed to ask permission from the State Government. Girls marrying outside Kashmir could not retain the rights of their property”. According to him, abrogation of Article 370 will impact Kashmiriyat as “Article 370 gave a special status, but it does not mean that Kashmiriyat will not be there, but it was our main connection with India, and now we have been pushed to the corner.” He further said that “Kashmiri culture is all unique. Our weather, land, is all included in culture, and it is all different from India. From the things we wear, share and discuss. Our culture has created space for people not to sleep on the streets. Everyone has a house, even a daily wager, and that is the beauty of Kashmir”.

A Kashmiri Pandit, age 54, who is also a present-day activist in Srinagar, described Kashmiriyat as “a political agenda which began when Muslim conference changed its name to National conference. Kashmiriyat is political, and Kosuriyat is what represents the Kashmiri culture which was born of Sufism and Rishism. They were two sides of a coin, and its propaganda was taking place throughout South East Asia. He was familiarised with the word Kashmiriyat in “6th grade when the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits took place. I have an issue with the way someone uses the idea of secularism; it is used by political parties for their own benefits”. For him, this aspect of Koshuriyat is significant as “after 30 years whenever there was a problem, we helped each other and mitigated the pains of each other. No matter which religion we practise, we are simply human beings, and we use it in such a manner owing to our forefathers.” Article 370 was addressed by him with respect to “it’s a removed provision from the Indian Constitution which gave us a separate constitution and a flag. There are certain provisions of this Constitution which were neglected access to Kashmiri pandits by the State Government like the reservation to OBC, ST/SC etc. which is again the call of the state government but its abrogation holds nothing for the Pandits of the valley”. He further added “I am a proud Kashmiri pandit. We have always respected each other in Kashmir, and I believe after 30 years of bloodshed, there is still brotherhood in the Valley that we live by. Communalism was not a concept that was present in the Valley, and it came from outside. People who migrated from outside to Kashmir brought this concept of communalism with them. When we were kids, during the festival of Shivaratri which we celebrate two days prior to the rest of India, everyone used to come to our houses, all kids in the locality despite their religion and ask for Tarbrookh (religious food offering) and we were happy. But then, the idea of communalism came within our boundaries and yet we still maintain this aspect of brotherhood. Our aim is to restore Kashmir to what it was before 1989.”

It is this aspect of Insaniyat which resonates within the words of the people of Kashmir. For some Kashmiriyat equals to insaniyat and for some Koushuriyat equals to insaniyat and the same perspective is also given by Dulat in his book. It was Vajpayee’s doctrine on Kashmir that first coined the slogan 'Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat, Kashmiriyat’. Dulat aslo mentions that Vajpayee had adopted the aspect of “Insaniyat” over that of the “Constitution”. His reply to a journalist who asked him about the Constitutional aspect of the Kashmir issue was that “Uski baat kyun karte hai, hum insaniyat kai dairai mai baat karaigai” which means that it is the humanitarian aspect that Vajpayee would consider in order to deal with the situation in the Valley (Dulat, 2015). Kashmir has a been a place worn out by dispute, and it would be reasonable to say that in a conflict situation people tend to look for the aspects of humanity and probably that is from where the aspect of insaniyat has been embedded in the minds of the people of Kashmir. This connection is so old and personal that people equate it to their culture. Hence, by describing insaniyat as Kashmiriyat, people have not only portrayed the values of people of Kashmir in a field of conflict but also the desire that they have to establish insaniyat as their culture.

To conclude, Kashmiriyat is not a political ideology at its core. Rather it is celebrated by the people of Kashmir in their own terms and with respect to their own experiences. It is also not a religious ideology as the birth of this term is attributed to the coming together of Kashmiris, despite their religion, towards the oppressive rule of the Dogras. Kashmiriyat lingers on the roads of the Valley and flows with the wind and is just like a wave of fresh air which fills the lives of its people. It surrounds them, entertains them, makes them cry, gives them hope and helps them to imagine a future full of brotherhood and humanity. Also, Article 370 has equally been a part of this culture as it existed way before Kashmir even acceded to India. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, came up with these laws in the year 1927 and that has been the reality of the lives of the people of Kashmir ever since. Hence it was not a new provision that was granted to Kashmir by the Indian Constitution but rather an extension of the policies of the Maharaja. Also, the execution of the provisions of Article 370 was a continuous occurrence after the accession but the idea of integration was never tried to be achieved through Article 370 itself. Probably, Article 370 was the solution all along. This has also been suggested by various studies like the interlocutor’s final report on Kashmir by Radha Kumar, M.M Ansari and Dileep Padgaokar. It would have acted more than a connection between India and Kashmir and rather transformed into a point of integration for both the sides by assuring the people of the Valley a safety of their identity and distinct culture which is mainly attributed to its closed geography and which has been the aim that the Valley is trying to achieve all along.

10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I’m greatly indebted to Prof. Dr Chaitanya Pradeep for bringing the concept of Kashmiriyat to my attention and for concrete suggestions on improving upon the presentation of the work

11. REFERENCES:

1. Aditi Malik, S. M. (2019, August 14). Why Kashmir may see increased violence after the revocation of Article 370. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/14/why-kashmir-may-see- increased-violence-after-revocation-article/

2. Agha, S. A. (2013). The country without a post office. New Delhi, India:

3. Ravi Dayal.Anderson, B. R. O. G. (2016). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

4. Arakotaram, K. (n.d.). The Rise of Kashmiriyat: People-Building in 20th Century Kashmir. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cujsas/Volume I/Karan Arakotaram - Kashmiriyat.pdf

5. Article 35A: Why a special law on Kashmir is controversial. (2019, August 5). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40897522

6. Article 370: What happened with Kashmir and why it matters. (2019, August 6). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49234708

7. Atal Bihari Vajpayee's 'Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat, Kashmiriyat' is the foundation for peace in Kashmir. (2018, August 16). Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/india/atal-bihari-vajpayees-insaniyat-jamhuriyat- kashmiriyat-is-the-foundation-for-peace-in-kashmir-4976011.html

8. Book review: A rare, masterful glimpse into Indian statecraft. (2015, July 6). Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/books/book-review-a-rare-masterful-glimpse-into-indian-statecraft/story-VJ8tyyp0Dla0KJF4sUKTO.html

9. Bukhari, S. (2018, April 24). Kashmir and Kashmiriyat. Retrieved from https://frontline.thehindu.com/books/kashmir-amp-kashmiriyat/article7961856.ece

10. Centre for Policy Research. (2019, September 11). Retrieved from https://cprindia.org/news/8100

11. Chowdhary, R. (2001). Understanding Political Alienation in Kashmir. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 159-178. Retrieved March 4, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/42753665

12. Chandrachud, A. (2019, August 21). The Spirit Of Article 370 . Retrieved from https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/the-spirit-of-article-370-by-abhinav-chandrachud

13. Contra Hindutva, Kashmiriyat: How consent works in a world of invented nations and fictional nationalisms. (2019, August 28). Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/contra-hindutva- kashmiriyat-how-consent-works-in-a-world-of-invented-nations-and-fictional- nationalisms/

14. Delhi Agreement, 1952. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://jklaw.nic.in/delhi1952agreemnet.pdf

15. Dulat, A. S. (2015). Kashmir: the Vajpayee years. Noida: HarperCollins.

16. Dutta, P. K. (2019, August 8). How Kashmir got Article 370: History retold. Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/kashmir-situation-article-370-history-1578495-2019-08-08

17. Ganguly, S., Ray, A., Dueby, I., Osuri, G., and Department of Sociology. (2019, October 7). Article 370 News, Research and Analysis. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/us/topics/article-370-74757

18. Instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://jklaw.nic.in/instrument_of_accession_of_jammu_and_kashmir_state.pdf

19. Jamwal, S. S. (n.d.). Article 370 - Its genesis and reactions in JandK state. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 54 (1993), 467–471. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44143001?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents

20. Jagota, S. (1960). Development of constitutional relations between jammu and kashmir and india, 1950—'60. Journal of theIndian Law Institute, 2(4), 519-538. Retrieved March 4, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43949608

21. Kashmiriyat: The Death of an Idea. (2019, September 11). Retrieved from http://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/kashmiriyat-the-death-of-an-idea/

22. Khan, S., Khan, S., Kumar, S., Kumar, S., Pandey, H., and Pandey, H. (2019, May 10). Article 370 And Dr. Ambedkar: A Fact-check. Retrieved from https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2019/05/article-370-and-dr-ambedkar-a-factcheck/

23. Kumar, R. (2019). Paradise at war: a political history of Kashmir. New Delhi: Aleph Book Company.

24. Kumar, R., Ansari, M. M., and Padgaokar, D. (n.d.). A new compact with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Retrieved from https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/JandK-InterlocatorsRpt-0512.pdf

25. Lone, F. N. (2018, April 30). Kashmir – The Tale of a Lost Nation. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/book/9789004359994/BP000003.xml

26. Masoodi, N., and Jacob, J. (2020, January 15). Days After Supreme Court Order, Kashmir's Internet Blackout Far From Lifted. Retrieved from https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jammu-and-kashmir-days-after-supreme-court- order-kashmirs-internet-blackout-far-from-lifted-2164661

27. Mukherjee, U. (2019, February 28). Right time to read Radha Kumar's book on Kashmir. Retrieved from https://www.telegraphindia.com/culture/books/right-time-to-read-radha-kumar-s-book-on-kashmir/cid/1685930

28. Noorani, A. G. A. M. (2015). Article 370: a constitutional history of Jammu and Kashmir. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29. Peer, B. (2011). Curfewed night: a memoir of war in Kashmir. London: Harper Press.

30. Radha Kumar's book lauch reflects on the geopolitics of Kashmir - Times of India. (2018, November 5). Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/books/book-launches/radha-kumars-book-lauch-reflects-on-the-eopolitics-of-kashmir/articleshow/66512385.cms

31. Rahim, S. (2010, August 6). Curfewed Night: a Frontline Memoir of Life, Love and War in Kashmir: review. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/7928862/Curfewed-Night- a-Frontline-Memoir-of-Life-Love-and-War-in-Kashmir-review.html

32. Rao, N. (2011). Social Scientist, 39(5/6), 87-90. Retrieved March 4, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41289409

33. Sengupta, A. (2019, October 17). The complex history of Article 370. Retrieved from https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/the-complex-history-of-article-370-sardar-vallabhbhai-patel-and-kashmir/cid/1712373

34. Sirur, S., Bhardwaj, A., Prasso, S., and Pandey, N. (2020, February 16). Kashmiri student alleges OYO Room in Delhi didn't let him check-in because of his identity. Retrieved from https://theprint.in/india/kashmiri-student-alleges-oyo-room-in-delhi- didnt-let-him-check-in-because-of-his-identity/366275/

35. Tak, T. (2013). The Term "Kashmiriyat": Kashmiri Nationalism of the 1970s Author(s): TORU TAK. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 48(No. 16), 28–32. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23527257.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:82314cc3cfae60a 1aa4b214472d0eb28

36. Teng, M. K., Bhatt, R. K. and Kaul, S. (1977). Kashmir Legal Documents. Light and Life Publishers.

37. Bhabha, H. K. The Location of Culture. (2004, October 1). Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/187943.The_Location_of_Culture

38. Untangling the Kashmir Conflict. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://thebookreviewindia.org/untangling-the-kashmir-conflict/

39. Wani, F. A. (n.d.). Formation of National Conference and its role in party system of Jammu and Kashmir. International Journal of Scientific Development and Research. 2(8) 153-156. http://www.ijsdr.org/papers/IJSDR1708023.pdf

APPENDIX

Interviews Questioners:

What does the term Kahmiriyat stand for?

When was the first time you got familiarised with this word and what was its first impression in your mind?

Has its meaning subsequently changed to you?

How relevant is this in the present day context or to you personally?

What is article 370?

Does it share any connection with Kashmiriyat?

Will the abrogation of 370 have any impact on its existence or its perception?

Concluding remarks on the distinctiveness of Kashmiri culture?

Received on 19.06.2020 Modified on 25.06.2020

Int. J. Ad. Social Sciences. 2020; 8(2): 39-54.

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2679.2020.00006.7