| Abstractions in Kashmir History | “White Man’s Burden

A comparative analysis of the six canonical texts written by the European travellers reveal a concerning trait: a consistent repetition, duplication and appropriation of Kashmir’s ancient History. These generalized assertions, coupled with fantastic mythologies blurred the line between History Proper and mythologies. By analyzing the contents of Nilmatpurana, Rajatarangini and Si-Yu-Ki and comparing them with the works of Bernier, Moorcroft, Wolff, Lawrence, Younghusband, Bruce and Biscoe, this article examines the borrowed content and the ‘scholarly pastiches’ of the European writers that shaped the discourse surrounding Kashmir’s ancient History. In doing so, the article questions the historiography credentials of these travellers who even went on to pass dictum about the ‘character’ of a Kashmiri. This article aspires to rescue History from the clutches of pure mythology and abstractions in order to inspire scholars and others to read History as mere History; not fantastic mythology.

‘History is written by the winners’. What if there was no winner or a loser at the end of the war? Who gets to write History then? In the case of Kashmir, the burden befell the ‘White Man’. He realized the documentation of the ‘arcane’ history of Kashmir is his burden to bear. Thus, in the process he wrote the aspects of Kashmir history that were never documented or even heard of before. Over the surface, everything seemed fine. However, the devil was lurking deep down in the scary depths of the details. While documenting the history of Kashmir, the travelers, officials and missionaries among others, quite drolly made some abstractions about its past and present. At times History was equated with Mythology by uncritically skimming through the contents of the available literature. And at times Kashmiris were being called lazy. Pertinent to lazy reading, the produced literature was a pastiche of the previous literature.

The incredible story of the formation of Kashmir, once the gods had defeated the water-borne demon Jalodbhava, is given to us by Nilmatpurana and later iterated by Rajatarangini. Hiuen Tsang while giving us a Buddhist version of it credits Madhyantika for making a water-borne ‘dragon’ his disciple and Kashmir habitable. In the middle of the 7^th century, Hsein-Ch’eng parroted the story, as did Shaman Hui Li by the end of the century. These writers wrote with a religious proclivity and intended to address the religious audience. However, the White Man, as usually perceived, did not have a predetermined religious proclivity. He was even absolved of the sin of superstitious bias, for which he had quite comfortably passed the buck to the local Kashmiris.

Francis Bernier, writing in the middle of the 17^th century, mentions the story of the lake of Kashmir being habitable by the instrumentality of Kashyapa. He was not reticent to show his discomfort with the idea of one man draining the lake. Joseph Wolff, writing in the 11^th century, reproduced the story, only substituting Kashyapa with Kashaf and Srinagar with Nagarnagar. It was Mrs. C. G. Bruce who, in the early years of the 20^th century, tried to find the connections between Kashmir’s mythology and its geological formation. The start was promising. Yet somehow, she ended up confusing Kalhana’s water-borne demon with Hiuen Tsang’s water-borne dragon. She, nevertheless, made sure to blame the ‘unlettered’ people of Kashmir for believing in such stories.

Mythologies have always been an important part for the unlettered people and their collective memory. But did they appropriate it with being actual History? On analyzing the geological formation of Kashmir, we realize that after the collision of Indian plate with that of Asian plate some 50 million years ago, a large depression was formed. This depression was soon filled with water. Some 25,000 years ago, due to more tectonic activities the Baramullah gorge opened and the lake was drained, making Kashmir valley habitable. By comparing the mythological origin of stories with the geological formation, it seems, Kashmiris had the proclivity to fictionalize history and preserve them as stories. Whereas the White Man simply visited some million years later, to appropriate the fiction with reality.

Now that the geological origins of Kashmir are established, the next station is that of the first inhabitants. Rajatarangini and Nilmatpurana identifies the serpentine creatures (Nagas) as the first inhabitants of Kashmir. Hiuen Tsang opines that attendants brought by Madhyantika for the service of the Buddhist priests, eventually crescendoed into the Kashmiri populace. The archaeologists, in their humble opinions, too have an opinion. With regards the first inhabitants of Kashmir, Professor H. D. Sankalia, in 1969, was able to unearth a hand axe belonging to the Palaeolithic age, near Lidder Valley in Pahalgam. Archaeologists were also able to discover few stone tools at the Overa valley in Pahalgam that belong to the Palaeolithic period. Excavations conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1960-1971 did not bring forth any evidence resembling Nagas or their worship in Palaeolithic period. On the contrary, the earliest religious images discovered in Kashmir belong to Buddhism and are from 3^rd and 4^th century AD. Bruce, meanwhile thought it pertinent to declare Naga worship as the oldest religion of Kashmir, leaving archaeologists scratching their heads in quandary.

An aspect of Kashmir’s history that requires a dedicated historical analysis is the pastiche of ‘drowning’ punishments meted out by the kings. The base is set by Huien Tsang who accuses Ashoka of drowning his subjects. Jonaraja adds on by calling out Jayapida, Suha Bhatta, Adam Khan and even a Naga for drowning the people as a punishment. However, it is Lawrence who is often read and quoted by other European writers. The echo of Lawrence calling out the Afghans for drowning their subjects could be heard in Younghusband’s accounts in an absolutely similar fashion. Bruce, with some dereliction of details, charges another king. Biscoe puts Ali Shah on the pedestal. The content of these stories are always similar but the perpetrator keeps on changing. A historian’s dichotomy of separating the wheat from the chaff is thus increased. The semblance in the content and character of European writers is a result of inappropriate inquiries into the work of their forerunners. This could be ascertained by the fact that Moorcroft was well aware with the work of Forster, Bernier, Hiigel, and Vigne. The fact that almost all the European authors have lent a space to ‘drowning punishments’ in almost a similar fashion, within their books, speak volumes about the impuissance of these writers in the face of available literature.

Irresponsible collection of history does not just irk historians. It also allows fabricated histories to infiltrate the ‘historical’ discourse surrounding Kashmir. Factually incorrect inferences drawn by Lawrence made him credit Mughals for ‘introducing’ the Chinar to Kashmir. Regardless to say, Chinar had been a part of Kashmir for much longer. He exonerated all the kings of persecution against Buddhism whilst Kalhana kept on wailing for the persecuted Buddhists. Younghusband, just like Bruce, nonchalantly appropriated an ‘original’ religion for Kashmir. Bruce asserted the change of rulers being a reason for the change of religion among the people. Biscoe kept on attesting to the the same assertions. Wolff, meanwhile had ‘divine visions’ and was busy recording them in his ‘travels’.

The European writers did not prevaricate from making some brute generalizations about the Kashmiris either. Moorcroft called them ‘dissolute’. Wolff found the burning alive of a family a ‘retributive justice of God’. Lawrence too jumped on the wagon and reserved some choicest words for the Kashmiris. To him Kashmiris were liars, rumourmongers, jealous, timid, incredulous of the existence of good, lacking in personal courage and a few things more. Bruce, while not letting Lawrence get better of her, called out the Kashmiris for lacking endurance and patience; for whining and being lazy . Biscoe considered them to be cowards, with no self-respect and deceitful in nature. Bruce meanwhile quite surreptitiously commends Biscoe for turning these whiny babies into ‘men’.

Moorcroft while recalling the dissolute nature of Kashmiris forgot the Kashmiri, whose gratefulness he finds significant enough to include in his travels. Lawrence and Biscoe while calling them ‘timid’ and ‘coward’ (respectively) drew a blank on the repeated defeats Kashmiris incurred upon the Varmans, Ghaznavids, Mughals, Dogras etcetera. Bruce while inferring Kashmiris to be ‘lacking endurance and patience’ did not take into account the multiple famines, droughts and floods the Kashmiris had braved with endurance and patience. Bruce while calling them ‘lazy’, does not recall that they literally dredged an entire river manually for the flood waters to pass.

“History is written by the winners” goes the saying. Who wrote the history of Kashmir? Why did they choose to write what they wrote? What version of it is factual and which one is fictitious? What were their motivations and limitations? Answers to these questions are contested. Just as contested is the question who wrote that quote?

BY Moin S Hakak

Moin S. Hakak PhD Research Scholar, Christ University, Bangaluru, Department of International Studies, Political Science and History