news details |
|
|
| Baseless allegations against Dogra rule | | Ending Bitterness -- II | | Neha
Jammu, Sept 30: The sub-committee summoned each of these individual, including Sad-ud-Din Shawl, to appear and explain the contents of their representation. Many of them appeared and recorded their statements. The findings of the sub-committee made the members conclude that the "allegations" contained in the portion of the memorials were "exaggerated" and that "they were couched in the most improper and objectionable language". However, the sub-committee did admit that the proportion of Muslim officials in the state was "small". At the same time, the sub-committee observed that "this was due to the difficulty of securing suitable Muslim candidates which prevailed, though to a lesser extent, also in British India". The sub-committee further observed that the number of Muslim employees was "gradually being increased, but until the Muslim community took full advantage of the educational facilities which the Darbar provided, it was unreasonable to expect the state to take Muslims into service in proportion to their population". However, the sub-committee asked the "signatories" to the memorials to "bring to their notice specific complaints of corruption and prejudice on the part of the state officials".
It may be further noted with regard to the complaint of the Kashmiri Muslim religious leadership that the number of Muslims in government service was rather low, that the information contained in the memorials was invariably inaccurate and the number of Muslim employees minimized. This was the case, for instance, in regard to the Police and Accounts Departments as the memorialists themselves admitted and it appeared from the statements of some of them that the statistics were supplied by Kh Sad-ud-Din Shawl and were blindly accepted. As regards the Revenue Department, the assertion that "even the orderlies, jamadars and peons are almost all Hindus" was nothing short of grotesque. The memorial gave the impression that, apart from one Member of State Council, Muslims were debarred from holding high positions in the state.
It will not be out of place to mention a few instances to refute this contention. Of the two Chief Judges in the state, one was a Muslim. Of the two Superintendents of Police, one was a Muslim. The highest official in the Settlement Department was a Muslim. One Muslim official was head of the Cooperative Department. In the Revenue Department, there were many Muslims holding important positions. For instance, in Kashmir province, two out of three Wazir-i-Wazarats (official below that of the Provincial Governor) were Muslims.
One of the allegations against the government was that the "Pandits were regarded as beyond the reach of law". The memorialists, when called upon by the sub-committee to substantiate the charge, failed to adduce any instance in support of their allegation that Pandits were beyond the reach of law while the Muslims were "victimized with impunity".
One can site here several other instances to prove that the allegations levelled by Sad-ud-Din Shawl and others of his ilk against the Dogra rule were baseless and motivated, but the space doesn't permit this writer to do so. No wonder then that the sub-committee expressed the view that the Muslim interests had not in any way suffered and that the "Darbar have shown no prejudice against their Mohammedan subjects, nor they have any intention of departing from the strict adherence of impartiality in future".
The sub-committee in their recommendations pin-pointed that the main "ring-leaders" behind the episode were Kh Sad-ud-Din Shawl and Kh Hassan Shah Naqshbandi and recommended that Shawl be expelled from the state and "should not be allowed to return until and unless he is permitted to do so by His Highness-in Council" (read Maharaja Pratap Singh). Regarding Naqshbandi, the sub-committee noted that the leading part played by him in the "disloyal" movement was most reprehensible because "his family has long enjoyed ad continue to enjoy the benefits of a Jagir granted to them by the Hindu ruler". The committee recommended that his share in the Jagir "should now be confiscated".
Pratap Singh accepted the recommendations with "great pain". He made it clear that it had always been and "will always be always be his aim to deal impartially with classes of people whose welfare is very dear to my heart" (Proceedings of the sub-committee and order No. 96-C, JK Gen. Dept. File No. 524/F-62 of 1924).
The writer of "Formations of the Kashmir" and others of his ilk would do well to go through the original documents which re available with the State Archives Repository, Jammu, before commenting on the nature of the Dogra rule. But it is difficult to say that they would do so because they are biased and communally-motivated. They have contempt for the Dogras and the Dogra rule and, hence, they should do one thing: They should join hands with those who have been recommending trifurcation of the state into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh states as the most viable solution to the issues facing different regions of the state. They cannot pour venom on the Dogras and the Dogra rule and suggest a solution that also brings the people of Jammu province under its ambit. In fact, this is the only alternative available to end inter-regional bitterness. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
