{"id":3362,"date":"2026-10-15T09:15:47","date_gmt":"2026-10-15T09:15:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kashgilnews.com\/english\/?p=3362"},"modified":"2026-10-15T09:15:48","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T09:15:48","slug":"outdated-rhetoric-public-resistance-and-the-formation-of-a-national-movement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kashgilnews.com\/english\/3362\/","title":{"rendered":"Outdated Rhetoric, Public Resistance, and the Formation of a National Movement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by : Habib Rahman<\/mark><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When an individual begins to contemplate a noble cause\u2014rising to pursue it, challenging the status quo imposed by others, and initiating a struggle against oppression, subjugation, and injustice\u2014they cast a faint glimmer of hope and courage. In time, this ripple swells into a tempest, shattering the colossal walls of bondage, tyranny, and injustice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in societies deeply mired in the quagmire of reactionary thought, a specific mindset is imposed\u2014politically, economically, culturally, and socially\u2014wherein navigating through the darkness of ignorance becomes the norm. Fabricated historical interpretations and self-serving ideologies emerge as the dominant trends, trapping society in a stifling grip where historical truths lie buried beneath thick veils. Unearthing these truths requires not only the courage to inquire and explore but also a robust political narrative, organization, and movement\u2014elements as vital and indispensable to a society as the circulation of blood is to the human body. When examining the overall situation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir within this context, the results reveal ideological ambiguity and intellectual disarray. These factors not only hinder the formation of a coherent national movement within this divided state but also distort the nature of the struggle, indirectly subjecting it to religious sectarian violence rooted in hatred. Consequently, the endeavor to attain freedom\u2014aimed at restoring the state\u2019s unity and reconstructing it\u2014has not only failed to evolve into a unified national movement, but has also been co-opted by forces advocating for obsolete and rejected ideologies. From religious extremism and fundamentalist nationalism to a muddled form of progressivism, various factions are exploiting this volatile environment for their own ends. Meanwhile, the state and its people are becoming increasingly disempowered, trapped in a state of uncertainty that is rapidly descending into a sense of defeatist despair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of these remarks is to facilitate an assessment of the movement, its organization, and its requirements in light of the demands of the modern era\u2014ensuring that the essential prerequisites for building a national liberation movement are properly aligned. Ultimately, the defining characteristic of any such movement is its ideological consciousness; this serves not only as a source of strength but also as a guiding path. By following this path, a people can secure their freedom while simultaneously forging a new society and a new human being\u2014one liberated from all forms of prejudice, hatred, and moral decay. This is a vital historical mission that the people of Jammu and Kashmir must undertake. It is the responsibility of the intelligentsia to play a pivotal role in this endeavor, providing the necessary leadership to guide the people of the state out of their current, convoluted predicament. If this cannot be achieved, it will manifest as a new form of obsolescence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Evolutionary Stages of Humanity<\/mark><\/strong>
Before attaining its present form, humanity has passed through various stages to reach this level. It has traversed a long journey\u2014from ancient, communal social and economic life, through the eras of slavery and feudalism, to the advanced stage of capitalism. While humanity has encountered misguidance, moral deviation, injustice, bloodshed, and violence, it has simultaneously discovered new forms of human connection. In transitioning from a nomadic existence to the formation of family, tribal, regional, and national structures, humanity has not only made immense sacrifices but has also developed new ideologies to dismantle systems of subjugation and social inequality\u2014effectively dispelling the profound darkness that once shrouded history. Global thinkers\u2014foremost among them Karl Marx\u2014not only formulated new theories but also, using the hammer of revolution, shook the foundations of oppressive and exploitative classes.
This journey of struggle continues; while it may be rapid in some places and sluggish in others, this war against oppression and injustice is destined to ultimately prevail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All phenomena within the universe, along with the course of history, provide irrefutable evidence that the universe has always existed, and that the existence of humanity within it is an undeniable reality. While the specific stages and phases through which humanity passed during its evolutionary process remain a separate subject of discussion, it is an undeniable fact that, as a species, humans have traversed a long journey\u2014encompassing the development of civilization, culture, thought, action, knowledge, and the arts\u2014to arrive at the advanced era we inhabit today. It is certain that humanity will succeed in creating a society that not only replaces the existing system\u2014characterized by oppression, exploitation, and injustice rooted in unlimited private ownership\u2014with a system of collective ownership, but also fosters a shared way of life. This will render the world a beautiful place, imbued with love, where human beings will learn to live together, functioning as an integral part of one another\u2019s existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nothing in the universe is complete, nor is anything the final word; the insistence that any process is definitive and absolute is a form of illusory falsehood\u2014one that thrives in the dark caverns of divinity and transcendence. Naturally, one cannot remain in these dark caverns for very long. In any case, this has been a brief discussion. We shall now turn our attention to certain questions. The circumstances surrounding the establishment, formation, and partition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir\u2014compounded by the failure of the movement for the restoration of its unity to evolve into a truly national endeavor, the rise of fundamentalism, and the suffocating grip of the occupying states\u2014have, on one hand, given birth to profound despair and hopelessness. Yet, on the other hand, they have offered those endowed with reason and consciousness an opportunity to contemplate a perspective that could facilitate a social contract among the people of all parts of the State\u2014a contract capable of binding them together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Brief Historical Overview<\/mark><\/strong>
Over the long course of history, events and circumstances sometimes become blurred or are relegated to the background; this is precisely what has happened\u2014and continues to happen\u2014with the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In deeply underdeveloped societies, distorted accounts of events often come to be accepted by the public as the truth. This is what occurred in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, though the veil is now beginning to be lifted. The Treaty of Amritsar, concluded on March 16, 1846, between representatives of the East India Company\u2014acting on behalf of the British Empire\u2014and Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu, marked a pivotal moment. Following the defeat of the Punjab government in its war against the British, a war indemnity was imposed; the defeated Punjab government found itself unable to pay this sum (or perhaps other factors were at play). Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu agreed to pay the indemnity, and in exchange, the Kashmir Valley\u2014which was already under the suzerainty of the Punjab Darbar\u2014was placed under his authority. This served as the foundational basis for the establishment and formation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently, Raja Gulab Singh brought Ladakh, Gilgit, and various smaller states or fiefdoms adjacent to Jammu under his control\u2014employing a range of methods, from the use of force to diplomatic negotiation\u2014thereby completing the formation of the state. Raja Gulab Singh transitioned from ‘Raja’ to ‘Maharaja’; the system of governance established was a monarchy, in which authority rested solely with the Maharaja (or sovereign). This system was neither democratic nor representative of the people. As a nascent state, it began its journey under a degree of British control\u2014though not absolute\u2014yet the British exercised no interference in its internal administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The successors of Maharaja Gulab Singh maintained the unity of the state, preserving the form in which it had originally been constituted. Without going into exhaustive detail, it is fair to say that the state\u2019s final ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh\u2014acting as a worldly-wise and far-sighted leader\u2014introduced numerous reforms. These included the establishment of a state assembly (parliament), the enactment of laws defining state residency, and various educational and other reforms. While these measures were arguably insufficient, they marked the beginning of a reformist transition that could have ultimately proven beneficial and advantageous for the people of the state. However, the short-sighted Muslim leadership within the state failed to keep pace with unfolding events, even as the decision to partition the subcontinent was finalized\u2014leading to the creation of both India and Pakistan. Amidst this tumultuous environment, the Maharaja made every effort to maintain the state\u2019s independence and sovereignty, though he was ultimately unsuccessful. (In terms of military strength, the Maharaja commanded approximately nine battalions of infantry and one battalion of cavalry\u2014a total force of roughly 10,000 personnel. This force was predominantly composed of Dogra Rajputs, with a smaller number of Muslims; meanwhile, a significant number of individuals from Poonch and Mirpur were serving in the British Indian Army.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, Maharaja Hari Singh sought to establish agreements for peaceful coexistence with both India and Pakistan. He successfully concluded a ‘standstill’ (peaceful coexistence) agreement with Pakistan, whereas India responded with hesitation and delay. Yet, in blatant disregard of all established rules and principles\u2014and driven by greed, avarice, and deceit\u2014Pakistan orchestrated an invasion of the state on October 22, 1947, utilizing impoverished Pashtuns from the frontier region (Pakhtunkhwa) as the invading force. The attackers enjoyed the full support of the local Muslim population and their leaders; consequently, the local non-Muslim population was subjected to a ruthless massacre. Their properties were looted, homes were set ablaze, and women were violated and abducted. All of this took place under the patronage of the Pakistani army. With the exception of a very few individuals\u2014in Poonch, Mirpur, and a limited part of the Valley\u2014no one condemned or opposed this carnage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result of this attack, Maharaja Hari Singh found himself completely helpless. In a state of utter desperation, he was compelled to appeal to India for assistance; however, India conditioned its military aid upon the signing of an instrument of accession. Left with no other choice, a conditional accession agreement was concluded\u2014an arrangement that the Government of India unilaterally terminated on August 5, 2019, thereby subjecting a portion of the state to yet another partition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid the tumultuous circumstances of 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh\u2019s efforts to keep the state united proved unsuccessful. While there were several reasons for this failure, the primary factor was the anti-Maharaja stance adopted by political parties such as the National Conference and the Muslim Conference\u2014a position that effectively evolved into an anti-state narrative. Acting at the behest of India and Pakistan, these parties rejected the Maharaja\u2019s proposals. Consequently, not only was the state partitioned, but a deep chasm of communal hatred was also created among the populations of its various regions\u2014a divide that persists to this day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the partition of 1947, Pakistan consolidated and strengthened its control over Azad Jammu and Kashmir (comprising Poonch, Mirpur\u2014part of the Jammu province\u2014and a portion of the Kashmir Valley) as well as Gilgit-Baltistan. The Muslim Conference, which was already functioning as a proxy, played a pivotal role in this process. The current situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir is entirely attributable to those very Pakistan-backed elements who were responsible for the partition of the state and the massacre of innocent, defenseless people in 1947. This has been a brief overview; while the subject warrants far greater detail, this concise summary will prove helpful and useful as we look toward the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Formation of a National Movement: Challenges, Obstacles, and Hope
The circumstances surrounding the partition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are rooted in a multitude of causes. However, the estrangement, disparities, and deep divisions among the state\u2019s people stem from a sectarian, religiously-charged hatred\u2014a hatred that fundamentally altered the very meaning of words and ideas. In this climate, the pursuit of freedom was branded as treason, while any discourse on the unity of the state was dismissed as hostility toward Islam and Pakistan. Hatred was cultivated so systematically along sectarian lines that the state\u2019s population became not only alienated from one another but also fundamentally divergent in their thinking, ideologies, and political conduct\u2014effectively shattering the social fabric of a people who had lived together for centuries. To make matters worse, in the aftermath of the partition, the entire society was systematically fractured through the use of coercion, brute force, intimidation, manipulation, fear, and inducement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pakistani state\u2014driven by an ideology of Muslim fundamentalism\u2014sought to fulfill its expansionist ambitions within the Indian-administered portion of the state (specifically the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley). By waging an indirect sectarian war, it devastated the lives of an already destitute population, exacerbating their economic, political, and social misery. Indian authorities, meanwhile, exploited this situation as a pretext to justify the slaughter of innocent people. Simultaneously, the “soldiers of God” dispatched by Pakistan not only forced the local population to flee their ancestral homeland but also claimed their lives. Meanwhile, the situation in the quarter of the state known as Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan was rendered even worse. From the very beginning, the people were denied democratic rights; they were psychologically crippled by the constraints of economic backwardness and geographical isolation, and their history was distorted. External invaders and looters were portrayed as heroes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An education system rooted in lies and deception was devised, while the deep-seated religious sentiments of the populace were cynically exploited\u2014a process that devastated society down to its very foundations. By distorting the economic, political, social, and ideological pillars of society, every possible tactic was employed to coerce and manipulate the people into accepting subjugation to Pakistan. National and democratic demands were criminalized; the external invaders of 1947\u2014who were, in reality, murderers, savages, and inhumane beasts\u2014were presented as heroes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this manner, Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan were left crippled and rendered completely powerless. Any line of thought or vision centered on the unity of the state and the rights of its people was ruthlessly crushed. Immediately following the partition of 1947, the local population rose in rebellion against the occupiers\u2014an uprising known as the “Poonch Rebellion”\u2014which Pakistan suppressed with extreme brutality, inflicting horrific, inhumane atrocities upon the people. This marked Pakistan\u2019s second assault on the state\u2019s population; yet, this courageous struggle has been erased from the pages of history. Such is the pervasive climate of fear that, even today, people hesitate to speak about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, the occupying forces\u2014seeking to instill fear in the populace and detach them from their own land\u2014began cultivating a class of leaders who were loyal neither to the people nor to the state; instead, they remained devoted solely to serving their masters. Consequently, a pervasive sense of helplessness and uncertainty took root in this region, giving rise to ideological confusion and intellectual ambiguity\u2014specifically, the false notion that this territory, currently under Pakistan\u2019s occupation, is actually “free.” To unpack this ideological confusion and intellectual ambiguity, let us examine what an “ideology” is and what is meant by “freedom.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ideology<\/mark><\/strong>
An ideology can be understood as a comprehensive system of ideas\u2014or, at times, merely a specific state of mind\u2014that offers a framework for resolving problems, grounded in the highest ideals of human freedom and equality. It is important to note, however, that an ideology is not composed of ideas devoid of emotion; rather, it inherently encompasses feelings\u2014such as likes, dislikes, hope, and fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the scientific principles of class struggle are formulated within the context of marginalized classes, an ideological framework can also be constructed around sentiments such as solidarity with oppressed nations and states, compassion for the destitute, hatred toward the oppressor, and the spirit of rebellion and fervor. If we examine the various historical manifestations of ideology, it becomes clear that it cannot be viewed in isolation from history\u2014that is, from the collective life of society. Instead, the role, components, and forms of an ideology must be sought and understood within the societal context itself. Otherwise, an ideology risks devolving into a mere myth\u2014a product of pure fantasy or abstract metaphysics\u2014entirely disconnected from the foundational realities of its origin. If we examine the fundamental structure of society in light of the material continuity of history, it becomes clear that the foundation of society is its economic structure. Upon this rests a social structure\u2014which in turn supports a political structure\u2014with the ideological structure serving as the most potent force. To sustain their existence, human beings inevitably enter into social relations of production that are independent of their personal desires or intentions. These relations of production\u2014which define the nature and development of the productive forces and constitute the economic structure\u2014form the essential foundation that shapes the general character of a society\u2019s material life (encompassing its social, political, and intellectual spheres, all derived from its mode of production).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within every stratum of society, competition, disagreement, and conflict persist in various forms\u2014all ultimately rooted in the economic structure, which encompasses everything from religion and ethics to science, poetry, and literature. From a materialist perspective, ideas are reflections of material reality; our social existence determines our consciousness, and the superstructure of society is merely a reflection of the foundation upon which individuals and society itself stand. While it is true that ideologies reflect the material conditions of society\u2014conditions that shape human social existence and consciousness\u2014it would be a fallacious assumption, entirely detached from reality, to conclude that an oppressed nation, a state, or a populace subjected to exploitation and tyranny will automatically adopt specific ideologies simply to liberate themselves from their subjugation, slavery, or oppression. The majority of the people in subjugated states and nations live under specific conditions\u2014conditions regarding which their consciousness is either underdeveloped or misaligned. We observe this in everyday life: while people are living within these new circumstances, they express a desire to return to the past; they praise the past while complaining about the present. This clearly signifies that they are neither satisfied with nor happy about the situation that has been presented to\u2014or imposed upon\u2014them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The notion\u2014prevalent among the people\u2014that returning to the past will resolve their problems of subjugation, oppression, and economic destitution is not an entirely sound perspective. Regarding those in this part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan) who support the genuine demand for freedom yet align their political loyalties with semi-nationalist groups or political parties established by Pakistan, there are two dimensions to consider. First, while their support for the demand for freedom implies that they do not\u2014in practice\u2014recognize the occupier as the legitimate owner, they nonetheless believe that rights can be secured while operating within the legal framework established by that very occupier. In reality, this approach is neither feasible nor a correct perspective. Furthermore, this line of thinking is flawed because pinning one\u2019s hopes on a colonial state is akin to blowing into the wind; such a stance stems from a lack of deep reflection on the issues at hand and is rooted in a deficient political ideology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An individual belonging to a subjugated state or nation can, in fact, become an enemy\u2014rather than a sympathizer\u2014of their own state, nation, and people. Caught in the harsh realities of enslavement and deprivation, such an individual is not only a victim of misconceptions and self-deception but also leads the broader public into the same trap. Thus, while an ideology may reflect the conditions of life, it is not an inevitable or automatic reflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This can be illustrated by examining the underlying motives behind the harrowing events of 1947\u2014specifically, the reasons why the Muslim population in this part of the state chose to welcome external invaders. There are two ways to view this: On one hand, the Muslim population was suffering from extreme economic destitution\u2014with negligible representation in government jobs, a severe lack of education, and the monopoly of the non-Muslim population over trade and commerce. This, coupled with a profound sense of religious and social discrimination, created conditions where they\u2014driven by their shared faith\u2014facilitated the entry of external invaders (who arrived from the direction of Pakistan), hoping that the bitterness of their lives would finally come to an end. While this economic perspective holds some validity, it certainly did not imply that the state itself should be dismantled. In the prevailing circumstances, however, the public\u2014swayed by short-sighted leaders, intellectual stagnation, emotional fervor, and religious propaganda\u2014ended up disenfranchising their own fellow citizens in the name of faith. They facilitated the establishment of a regime under the patronage of “diminutive” figures\u2014individuals who lacked any true stature\u2014who plunged the already economically distressed populace into a new, agonizing form of subjugation. The people were left even more helpless, forced to survive solely at the mercy of the occupiers. All of this stemmed from an ideological ambiguity\u2014a situation that stands as a stark testament to the conspiracies of foreign powers and a history riddled with the hypocrisy of power struggles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current reality is that one must possess the skill to apply the correct methodology. If you lack the ability to truly comprehend matters, your version of the “truth” will be nothing more than an incomplete, rudimentary sketch. One cannot analyze the content of a process without considering its social context. It is insufficient to attribute everything solely to economic conditions; one must also account for the influence of literature and art on the general attitudes of society\u2014a sphere where the internal evolution of ideas is constantly unfolding. Furthermore, it is essential to examine the social circumstances, economic standing, and class roles of the characters (or “crafted heroes”) depicted. What social perspective do their actions and the events surrounding them represent? If there is no sound basis for such an analysis, it is better to abandon the attempt rather than fabricate an interpretation; after all, the very existence of a phenomenon serves as the foundation for its interpretation\u2014interpretation cannot simply be invented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the situation faced by the part of the state currently under Pakistani occupation, there are two potential approaches for resistance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n