It translates thus:
یہ ہماری سیاسی بصیرت کا بہت کڑا امتحان تھا۔
شیخ عبداللہ کے سامنے دو راستے تھے ایک یہ کہ وہ مہاراجہ کے ساتھ رہ کر اندرونی اصلاحات کے ذریعے عوامی حقوق کی جدوجہد جاری رکھتے اور دوسرا یہ کہ وہ بیرونی قوتوں کے ساتھ ساز باز کر کے اقتدار کے ایک نئے توازن کا حصہ بنتے۔
انہوں نے دوسرا راستہ چنا اور یہی وہ موڑ تھا جہاں سے ریاستی خودمختاری کی بنیادیں ہلنے لگیں۔
ہمارے لئے خاص طور پر قابلِ غور بات یہ ہے کہ تاریخ نے بارہا یہ ثابت کیا ہے کہ اصلاح ہمیشہ اندر سے آتی ہے۔ باہر سے نہیں لائی جاتی۔
جن قوموں نے اپنی داخلی قوت پر بھروسہ کیا انہوں نے اپنی زمین اور شناخت دونوں محفوظ رکھا۔ لیکن جنہوں نے بیرونی حمایت کے سہارے انصاف یا آزادی حاصل کرنے کی کوشش کی، وہ نہ آزادی پا سکے اور نہ ہی انصاف پا سکے بلکہ ایک نئی محکومی میں جا گرے۔
سیاسی تناظر میں اگر سمجھا جائے تو یہ جموں و کشمیر کے نوجوانوں کے لیے ایک فکری و اخلاقی سبق ہے کہ ریاستوں کو بچانے کے لیے جذبات نہیں، بصیرت درکار ہوتی ہے اور قیادت کی اصل کسوٹی یہ نہیں کہ وہ نعرے کتنے بلند لگاتی ہے بلکہ یہ ہے کہ وہ اپنے لوگوں کو کتنا خودمختار سوچنا سکھاتی ہے۔
جموں و کشمیر کے ہر طبقے کی قیادت اور نوجوان لوگوں کو اس سے سخت سبق سیکھنے کی ضرورت ہے اور یہ جاننے کی ضرورت ہے کہ قومیں صرف دشمن سے نہیں بلکہ اپنی غلط قیادت اپنے کمزور فیصلوں اور اپنی فکری غلامی سے بھی برباد ہوتی ہیں۔
شیخ عبداللہ کی اس کمزور سیاسی حکمت عملی کے بدولت اگر ایک قوم اپنی خودی کو کسی دوسرے کے مفاد کے بدلے گروی رکھ دے تو پھر وہ قوم خود اپنا منڈیلا بھی کھو دیتی ہے اور اپنا ریاستی خواب بھی چکنا چور کر دیتی ہے۔
Translated thus:
This was a very stern test of our political vision & insight.
Sheikh Abdullah had 2 paths in front of him, one that he remain with the Maharajah and continue the struggle for people's rights by way of internal reforms. Secondly, that he conspire with outside forces and become part of a new balance of power.
He chose the second path and this was the turning point where the foundations of an independent State began shaking.
For us, of particular note and deserving our attention is that history has repeatedly proved to us that reforms are always created from within, they cannot come from without (outside/externally).
Those nations that relied on their internal strength, were able to secure their land & identity. While those who relied on gathering external support to obtain justice or freedom, they failed to obtain freedom or justice and fell into a new form of subjugation.
If put in a local political context, the youth of Jammu & Kashmir have to learn the moral & intellectual lesson that in order to protect your State, you cannot use emotions. Rather, you need clear vision. Testing the effectiveness of (political) leadership is not by judging how loud your (political) slogans are but in how effective you are in developing independent thinking (in the masses).
The leadership of every section/class/ideology of Jammu Kashmir and youngsters need to learn this bitter lesson and they need to be aware that nations are not only destroyed by enemies but by incorrect leadership, weak decisions and intellectual slavery.
If, on account of Sheikh Abdullah's feeble political strategy, a nation loses its self-respect for the benefit of another nation who holds it hostage, then that nation loses its Mandela themselves and their dream of a State is also shattered into pieces.
..end of translation
..
Barrister Asif (B A) responds to W D:
Excellent article young sir. Although Kashmiris see Sheikh Sahib as a towering political figure from the thirties to his death in 1982, but in reality he totally miscalculated and failed to grasp the moment in time. Maharaja Hari Singh was much more astute personality, he studied in the UK and got to understand the British political psyche, and he know what to do to keep the state of Jammu Kashmir from acceding to either India or Pakistan, whereas Sheikh sahib only pursued “Quit Kashmir Campaign”, not understanding the wider implications and empiricist plans.
..
B A (Continues)..
You have spoken about the exact facts. Your analysis is insightful and deeply grounded in historical reality.
Indeed when one compares Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s political vision with that of Maharaja Hari Singh, it becomes evident that Sheikh Sahib’s approach was driven more by emotional populism than by statecraft or strategic foresight. In contrast, the Maharaja’s policies were anchored in the principle of sovereignty and preservation of the state. Sheikh Abdullah’s greatest miscalculation was his failure to comprehend the rapidly shifting international and regional dynamics of his time- something Maharaja Hari Singh had grasped far better.
Having studied in the United Kingdom, the Maharaja understood the British imperial psyche and was acutely aware that the partition of India was not merely a religious divide, but part of a broader imperial reconfiguration in which princely states were to serve as buffer zones between the new dominions. While Sheikh Abdullah succeeded in mobilizing the masses and cultivating political charisma, he lacked a coherent policy for state stability and diplomatic balance. His so-called Quiet Kashmir Campaign remained confined to internal political reform and social awakening but failed to address the external threats and geopolitical manipulations surrounding the state.
In contrast, Maharaja Hari Singh read the moment with remarkable clarity. He envisioned Jammu and Kashmir as a neutral and independent polity that could serve as a bridge of peace between India and Pakistan. Tragically, internal divisions, opportunistic politics, and external interference shattered that vision. The painful truth is that had the leadership of that era combined collective wisdom with strategic unity, history might have taken a very different course. Your observation, therefore, is not only factually sound but also a powerful reminder for future generations. True leadership is not measured by popularity, but by the depth of historical understanding, geopolitical awareness, and the courage to preserve the moral and political integrity of one’s land.
..
Zahid Khan (adding to the conversation):
Like other Kashmiris, Sheikh Abdullah could not digest the fact that a Raja of his neighbouring region, like Kashmir, could become the Maharaja of the whole Jammu & Kashmir and run as a family dynasty.
♦
The aim of the Quit Kashmir movement was to separate Kashmir from the state even before the partition of the subcontinent and make it a semi-autonomous state or part of the Indian Union.
The Sheikh Sahib could clearly see his growing popularity and wanted to capitalize on it.
..
B A:
Absolutely young sir, emotions are something other than ground realities, and unfortunately the leadership of Jammu Kashmir, in both camps, the NC and MC were, and are duped, not only in emotional politics but greatest selfishness and material gains. For over 78 years both our occupiers have left no energies spared to mislead and divide us amongst ourselves. Unless and until we, torturously find our way back to a single narrative as people of Jammu Kashmir, regardless of race, religion, caste, tribe, language or province, we’re not going to succeed in reuniting our state and people. The current troubles in Ladakh, despite their variant demands, are our troubles, same goes for people of Pakistan occupied Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu Kashmir, to some extent the Valley and Jammu too. At present our voices are divided, but we need find ways and means to unite them.
....
No comments:
Post a Comment