Kashmir has seen many political battles, over land, identity, power and history, but the latest controversy has taken politics to a rather unusual wardrobe: one pair of trousers shared by an entire village. National Conference chief spokesperson and Zadibal MLA Tanvir Sadiq’s remarks about poverty in pre-1947 Kashmir have now become a full-fledged political controversy, with the BJP and PDP demanding an apology and protests being staged. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, however, has come to Sadiq’s defence, saying there was no need for either clarification or apology.
And why should there be, he seems to ask, when history itself has already done the explaining? Omar invoked Sir Walter Lawrence, whose writings documented the miserable condition of Kashmir’s peasantry. Sadiq too subsequently cited Lawrence while clarifying that his remarks were meant to highlight the “abject poverty and deprivation” suffered by Kashmiris under Dogra rule.
But politics, as usual, has little patience for historical footnotes when a controversy offers a ready-made microphone. The curious part is that nobody appears particularly interested in discussing the poverty itself. The argument has instead become about who said what, who should apologise, who should protest and who should defend. The poor Kashmiris of that era, whose poverty has suddenly become the centrepiece of political speeches, remain conveniently absent from the debate.
Perhaps the most unfortunate irony is that a discussion about people who allegedly did not have enough clothes to wear has turned into a political competition over who has the better political costume. History should certainly be debated. Historical suffering should be acknowledged. But history should not be selectively opened like an old cupboard whenever contemporary politics needs a prop. If Kashmir’s people were indeed reduced to such deprivation, that deserves serious historical examination—not outrage manufactured for television debates and street protests.
And if Sir Walter Lawrence recorded the condition of the peasantry, his account should be read, discussed and contested by historians rather than converted into ammunition by political parties. The real question is not whether a politician should apologise for mentioning a pair of trousers. The real question is: why are we more offended by the description of poverty than by poverty itself? Perhaps tomorrow, someone will demand an apology from history itself. Until then, the trousers remain in circulation, this time not from one villager to another, but from one political party to another.
