A bit more about Amarnath

It has been a while since my last post. Travel plus other events have made it difficult for me to write. I had ended my last post by promising to write about those who are fanning the flames of the Amarnath controversy. So, here it is...

In all of this time that the Amarnath controversy has been raging in Jammu and Kashmir, I couldn't understand one thing: if the yatra has been conducted in Kashmir valley for more than a century without any issue of land ownership coming up, then why suddenly did the Amarnath Shrine Board find it necessary to own some land for creating temporary shelters? Furthermore, why did some people in Jammu take such umbrage to the idea that title to some forest land would not be transferred to the Shrine Board for conduct of the yatra and instead its conduct would be facilitated by the government? After all, the yatra is not attended by people from Jammu alone. I suspect most pilgrims are from other parts of India and there has been a constant effort to improve facilities for pilgrims. Pretty soon, the controversy became Jammu versus Kashmir and Hindu versus Muslim. Quite frankly, I am amazed that Jammu's citizenry is allowing itself to be held hostage by extremisty elements who have helped turn this controversy into a major crisis for Inda's secularism. But, as we all now, some individuals and organizations fan the flames more than others. I will leave you with a couple of examples...

Exhibit 1: Rajiv Sikri (former senior officer of Indian Ministry of External Affairs) writing in Rediff.com says, "To my mind, whether or not the land in question should be transferred to the SASB is only a technical question, not the heart of the issue. The more important thing is whether the state government feels that it has an obligation to improve the facilities that would make the pilgrimage of thousands of Hindu devotees more secure and more comfortable." He goes on to give the example of the Haj subsidy to Indian Muslim pilgrims as a reason to improve facilities for Amarnath pilgrims and adds that "Perhaps our self-righteous and petty Kashmiri politicians in India's only Muslim-majority state should reflect over these facts and tell us whether they think it is at least their moral if not political obligation to be more caring and sensitive to Hindu pilgrims visiting Amarnath."

My take: I am not sure about Kashmiri politicians but I for one do not believe it is the government's responsibility to make religious pilgrimages more comfortable. Governments have a different role and Mr. Sikri should know that. This applies to Amarnath and Vaishno Devi pilgrimages just as much as it does to the Haj. So, please, Mr. Sikri, before you ask others to ponder over things, you should at least review the tenets of good governance given that you probably spent a lifetime in the Indian civil service.

Exhibit 2: S.K. Sinha (Former Governor of Jammu and Kashmir) spoke at a seminar "How to combat Religious Fundamentalism" at New Delhi's India International Center and said the following: "There is nothing unusual in the land transfer. Thousands of hectares of forest land have been given to Reliance to put up towers, to the public works department for road construction, and to the power department for erecting poles. But the land transfer to SASB (Shri Amarnath Shrine Board) was given a communal colour." He added "Even in Jammu, forest land was given to the Vaishno Devi Shrine Board. For the Mughal Road, which is necessary for the development of the region, about 10,000 trees have been cut and it is ecologically harmful. But for SASB, not a single tree has been cut."

My take: Will someone please explain to the discredited Mr. Sinha that there is a fundamental difference between public works such as construction of the Mughal Road or setting up of communication towers as opposed to government involvement in religious activity such as the Amarnath Yatra? If this is the thinking of top officials of the Indian government, one can hardly blame the poor folks who go out to die for their gods and godesses. Mr. Sinha has displayed a clear lack of understanding of the job of a governor in India's secular democracy. I wonder how these people make it to such positions! At least they should be given some basic training in good governance before being sent to sensitive spots such as Jammu and Kashmir.

Exhibit 3: Leela Karan Sharma (Convenor, Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti) on the occasion of India's independence day, made a speech to hundreds of activists and declared that "This is a historical place where Dogra rulers waged war against Britishers and we pledge today a war against Kashmir-centric leaders till victory. The issue today is also a war between nationalists and separatists."

My take: Mr. Sharma is doing his country no favours. People like him are the divisive characters that we need to tackle head-on. There is no war between nationalists and separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. My sense is that Mr. Sharma and his ilk have done nothing for the Yatra that comes even close to what Kashmiri Muslims have done for that pilgrimage. The people of Jammu need not fret over the Yatra. It will go on (hopefully in a manner that takes everyone's interests into account). But, the question for Jammuites, as it is for Kashmiris, is what is important for their future--a hyped up, totally retrograde controversy that will lead to divisions or a shared future that easily transcends the dirty politics of communal forces?

Until next time...