Islamophobic acts, like the public desecration of a copy of the Quran in the Hague earlier this week, have an effect not only on Muslims but the entire society in which they occur.
Protesters hold copies of the Quran
Earlier this week in the Hague, in an act that made America’s right-wing politicians look like paragons of religious tolerance, Edwin Wagensveid, the Dutch leader of the far-fight Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (PEGIDA) group, publicly desecrated a copy of Islam’s holy book and published a video of the hateful act on social media. This followed an incident over the weekend in which Rasmus Paludan, leader of the Danish far-right party Stram Kurs (Hard Line), burned a Quran near the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm Signalling that the incidents in Sweden and the Netherlands are part of a coordinated campaign of hate speech, as he tore and crumpled a page from the Quran, Wagensveld said, “Soon, there will be registrations for similar actions in several cities”. “Time to answer disrespect from Islam with disrespect,” he added On cue, and as the provocateurs intended, protests erupted across the Muslim-majority world. Western leaders then responded by lecturing Muslims on the subtleties of free speech and “respect” for diverse opinions Beyond this familiar pattern of Islamophobic provocation-Muslim rage-Western condescension, do such acts of provocation targeting vulnerable minorities have any effect on the societies in which they occur? Should non-Muslims living in Western societies care if a holy book they don’t believe in is used in a hateful publicity stunt?
Yes, they should. Because the propagation of Islamophobia makes democracies less free and less safe – not only for Muslims, but for everyone.
I lead research at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), a Washington, DC-based non-partisan think tank that provides research and education about US Muslims and the policies that affect them
Our researchers, in partnership with academic institutions and advisers, created the ISPU Islamophobia Index which measures the degree to which different groups in America endorse key anti-Muslim tropes.
In the past five years, we have measured the Islamophobia Index among Americans of different races, ages and faiths and no faith. We’ve also explored what predicts and protects against Islamophobic bias, and for which policies anti-Muslim bigotry manufactures public consent. The results paint a complex picture, but in the end expose a simple truth: Islamophobia threatens democracy. We found that endorsement of anti-Muslim stereotypes is unsurprisingly linked to favouring state policies that target Muslims, such as mosque surveillance and the so-called “Muslim ban” – a Trump-era policy that barred travel to the US from several Muslim-majority countries. But believers in Islamophobic ideas aren’t just ready to take rights away from Muslims. Our research showed that they are also willing to give up their own: higher scores on the Islamophobia Index are a prediction of acquiescence to authoritarianism. People who endorse anti-Muslim tropes like “Muslims are partially responsible for acts of violence carried out by other Muslims” or “Muslims are less civilised than other people”, all else being equal, are more likely to approve of curtailing freedom of the press and suspension of checks and balances in the wake of a terrorist attack. In short, the propagation of Islamophobia undermines the very foundation of a free society; a dissenting and well-informed citizenry Moreover, Islamophobia begets other bigotries. We found that anti-semitism and anti-Black racism are among the leading predictors of Islamophobia. Our research also demonstrated that Islamophobia doesn’t just make democracies less free and more bigoted. It makes them less safe – and not just in the ways many assume Yes, deviants claiming to act in the name of Islam do use Western anti-Muslim political rhetoric to recruit people to their violent cause. But that’s far from the greatest risk. We found that endorsing anti-Muslim ideas like “Muslims are more prone to violence than other people” or “Most Muslims are hostile toward the United States” ironically coincides with condoning the very acts those who hold these views pin on Muslims: deliberate attacks on and killing of civilians by a military, considered a war crime, and also by a small group or an individual, usually called “terrorism”. The rise in white supremacist violence in the United States as the number one terrorist threat to American lives in the Trump era should therefore be no surprise All this does not mean hate stunts like those we witnessed in Europe during the past week should be made illegal as some have demanded. As a believing Muslim who reads the Quran daily, and as a student of history, I know that the messenger of God endured far worse and that the book of God does not need our feeble protection – it was revealed as a protection for us. Moreover, we should not feed the image of these otherwise irrelevant provocateurs as “rebel free speech heroes” by censoring them. The worst punishment we can give them is to assign them the attention they deserve: none. Political speech aimed at fermenting Islamophobia should be viewed by the rest of society for what it is, not a defence of democracy, but an act which undermines it
Dalia Mogahed
Research Director at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
Sheikh Qaradawi probably did more behind the scenes fighting for justice for the Palestinian people than the corrupt armchair warriors sitting in the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.
Like millions of other Muslims, I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Dr Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. He truly was one of the greatest of contemporary Islamic scholars whose life and work had a huge impact on us all in both the 20th and 21st centuries.
As a moderniser, he had a special place in the hearts of many converts to Islam who sought his advice. Unlike some of the heavyweight Arab scholars today, he understood the unique challenges which confront the ethnically diverse Muslims emerging in the West. With wisdom and knowledge, he gave us newbies the courage to stand up to our critics and defend Islam, as well as the understanding to balance our religious commitments and hectic lifestyles, and thus avoid falling into extremist traps.
One of the biggest tropes still being pushed around the world about Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is that he was an Islamic extremist who fuelled hate and fanned the flames of intolerance. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Yes, there was hate, but it was directed at him by his detractors within the Muslim community and beyond.
The first tsunami of criticism hit him the moment that he called out Israel as a state built on the terrorism of the Irgun, Haganah and Stern gangs. He mentioned the atrocities committed by Zionist terrorists during the Nakba, and the murderous expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland, in some of his books, most notably Jurisprudence of Jihad. Sheikh Al-Qaradawi became a lightning rod for unbridled Zionist hatred fuelled by lies, media distortions and manipulation for doing nothing more than telling the unvarnished truth.
During a 2004 visit to Britain, the Arabic speaker was hounded by journalists who were so misinformed about what he actually said and didn’t say, that he gave an exclusive interview to the Guardian and made it very clear that comments attributed to him about homosexuality and wife beating were “totally inaccurate and unfair”. The article is rarely referred to by media researchers because it is at odds with the usual tropes and narratives about the so-called “hate preacher”.
For the past two decades, a pro-Israel propaganda machine has spewed out lies about him by distorting and weaponising his words aided and abetted by lazy, gullible journalists who allowed themselves to be spoon-fed without fact-checking or daring to question the “get Qaradawi” agenda. Some of the blame can be put down to poor Arab-to-English translations, but this didn’t stop equally ignorant politicians, pressured by pro-Israel lobbies, to ban his overseas visits.
I mentioned his name in passing to a friend recently and, without thinking, she bristled automatically, calling him a hate preacher and terrorist sympathiser. When I asked exactly what she was referring to she was unable to give a specific answer. Had she had read any of the 120 books penned by him? She stared back blankly. Her only defence was: “Well, it’s what I’ve been told. I know I’ve read it somewhere.”
And this is exactly how ill-informed poison is spread. The truth is that most Westerners would never have heard of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi but for his robust defence of the Palestinians who, if you really need reminding, have every right under international law to resist the brutal Israeli occupation that they are forced to endure on a daily basis. It is this recognition of the right to resist the occupation which angers the apartheid state and its allies, and so anyone who tries to justify Palestinian resistance gets targeted, as I wrote in MEMO the day before the Sheikh died. Check it out for yourself: Google “Israeli apartheid” and the first thing you will see is a paid-for advert by the Israeli government shooting the messenger and criticising Amnesty International’s apartheid expose.
Sheikh Qaradawi probably did more behind the scenes fighting for justice for the Palestinian people than the corrupt armchair warriors sitting in the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. I even wonder if Al-Aqsa Mosque would still be standing had he not originally called out the Zionist threats to Islam’s third holiest site years ago and established the Jerusalem International Foundation.
Thanks to the Sheikh’s work, a whole new generation of young Muslims and converts to Islam from around the world know about the special history and blessed status that Jerusalem has for Muslims and Christians alike. His legacy is to secure the long-term presence of Palestinian Jerusalemites in what he always prayed would be the capital of an independent Palestine.
The whole of the Muslim world should be in mourning at his passing, but millions of Arab Muslims are too afraid to shed even one tear in public. Why? That brings me to his other detractors: Arab despots.
Many of these tyrants would have had Al-Qaradawi arrested, tortured and killed had they been able to get their hands on him. His wisdom, popularity, immense knowledge and charisma made him an instant threat to their regimes. And his ability to weave together religion and politics while pushing for unity and reconciliation made him a threat to those who rely on instability in the Middle East to maintain their grip on power. I don’t want to soil this tribute to the Sheikh by mentioning their names, but we all know who they are. More importantly, his name will go down as one of Islam’s all-time greats while theirs will be in history’s grubby footnotes.
Yusuf Abdullah Al-Qaradawi was born under British colonial rule in 1926 in a village in the Nile Delta before going to Cairo where he studied at the influential Al-Azhar University. Playing a decisive role in his early years as a student of Islam, Al-Qaradawi became involved in the Muslim Brotherhood. The movement’s founder, Hassan Al-Banna, helped to inspire his understanding of the role of Islam in public life.
Almost inevitably, his active role in the socio-political movement led to him being imprisoned repeatedly during the 1940s and 50s. While others in the Brotherhood left prison and went on to form or join extremist groups, Al-Qaradawi was able to shake off the trauma of torture in the notorious Egyptian prison regime to continue his development within the movement.
However, as the persecution in Egypt continued he headed for the tiny gulf state of Qatar to teach, and very soon his knowledge was sought by Sheikh Ahmad Bin Ali Al-Thani. The Emir of Qatar passed away in 1977, by which time he and Al-Qaradawi had become firm friends. It was the Emir who granted the scholar Qatari citizenship.
Immersing himself in his work in Qatar, the Sheikh embarked on a hugely influential publishing career and his easily accessible style gained him admiration from a generation of Muslims in the West who found his writing so easy to understand. When Al Jazeera Arabic channel launched in 1996 Al-Qaradawi was given a weekly show called “Sharia and Life” which became prime-time viewing with more than ten million viewers around the world. In the late 1990s, he launched two websites — Qaradawi.net and islamonline.net — to provide religious guidance, especially to converts and the curious who wanted to know more about Islam.
There were opportunities for him to expand his career outside of Qatar but the Sheikh wisely declined a leadership role in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt on several occasions. As someone who could engage so easily with whoever was at his table, he used Islam to discuss everything from religion to politics, western democracy and climate change, as well as the challenges facing the Muslim world, including Palestine.
This all earned him the title “Global Mufti” which enraged his detractors even more. Determined to demonise him as an extremist his critics were derailed in their mission when, after the horrific events of 9/11 Sheikh Al-Qaradawi used his platform to condemned the attacks, Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Ignoring his moderate position, detractors turned to citing his support for the use of suicide bombers to resist Israel’s military occupation of Palestine. In later years, he would reverse his position on suicide bombing due to what he insisted were changed circumstances. He never regarded changing his view or opinion as a weakness, and while every fatwa — Shari’ah opinion — he issued was backed and supported by immense knowledge and understanding, he was also flexible without diluting his faith.
It is little wonder, then, that when the Arab Spring erupted in 2011 Muslims looked to him for advice and support. To the delight of ordinary Muslims he duly gave his support, but from the despots threatened by the uprisings he faced a new wave of animosity. Like many of us, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi hoped that peaceful revolution would bring an end to their brutal regimes and sweep in the Muslim democracy that he had long advocated.
The widespread failure of the Arab Spring and the downfall of the first democratically elected President of Egypt, Dr Mohamed Morsi, through a military coup in 2013, were extremely painful moments for the Sheikh. Far from being a divisive figure, he was constantly urging reconciliation.
Another huge disappointment for him was the failure of the revolutions in Iraq and Syria which saw the emergence of extremists in Daesh who declared their own “caliphate”. Bereft of any intellectual scholars of note, their ambitions rang hollow when the International Union of Muslim Scholars led by Al-Qaradawi declared this to be “legally null and void”.
I am going to miss the Sheikh’s ability to communicate with Muslims new to the fold of Islam using theology and sacred texts adapting to the needs of those like myself who weren’t born into a Muslim family or any of the various cultures at play in the Muslim world. Many of us Western converts were brought up to choose our own way of life, and so the “one size fits all” approach adopted by some scholars did not fit at all well, and Sheikh Al-Qaradawi knew that. For him, Islamic law was more a matter of conscience than coercion, and because he was able to embrace modernity, he was very popular among many Muslims wishing to live in the modern world while retaining or embracing a distinct Islamic identity.
As with most religions, Islam’s sacred texts are constantly reviewed and interpreted by scholars and this is where Al-Qaradawi’s skill of moving effortlessly in the contemporary world put him ahead of just about everyone else. He always looked for the meaning behind a Qur’anic verse instead of taking it literally, in stark contrast to the more traditionalist interpretations of other scholars.
Sheikh Al-Qaradawi has also been credited as a pioneer of what some viewed as a new jurisprudence called fiqh al-aqalliyyat — the “Jurisprudence of Minorities” — covering the growing Muslim communities living outside Arab and Muslim countries. In this, he drew on the traditional Islamic concept of “taysir”, often translated as “facility”, to argue that Muslims in the West should be treated more leniently with regard to Islamic law.
I remember someone sending me a copy of his fatwa published by islamonline.net permitting a European woman to remain married to her non-Muslim husband after she converted to Islam because of their otherwise harmonious union. This was ground-breaking stuff for converts who face all sorts of challenges while trying to embrace a new faith and lifestyle.
He also permitted European Muslims to take mortgages on houses and small businesses in order to function and work while living in the West. Both of these practices are normally strictly forbidden for Muslims, but he also recognised the impracticality of forcing traditional interpretations of Islamic law on those of us living in the West.
I am going to miss Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s common sense approach to our great faith and its diverse family of believers, but I’m confident that his legacy will live on through his followers and supporters. In my view, he was someone who could navigate all points of the compass; definitely a man for all seasons.
Every year, in the month of Muharram, millions of Shi’as and Sunnis alike, mourn Imam Husayn’s martyrdom. It is regrettable, however, that of these mourners very few focus their attention on the objective for which the Imam not only sacrificed his life but also the lives of his kith and kin. It is but natural for his family members and those who foster feelings of love, respect and empathy for his family to express their grief over his martyrdom. The nature of this sadness and grief is apparent universally and also from those who bear relations with them. The moral appreciation and futility of this sentiment with the persona of this individual is nothing more than the love that bears out as a natural consequence with his relatives and sympathizers of his kin. But the question is, what is so particular about Imam Husayn that even though 1320 years have elapsed our grief is afresh? If his martyrdom was not for a sacred objective, the mere continuation of this remembrance on a personal level is meaningless. And in the eyes of Imam Husayn, what value would this mere personal love and devotion hold? If his own self were dearer than the objective, then he would not have sought sacrifice. His sacrifice bears witness that that he held the objective more dear than his own self. Therefore, if we do not work for this objective and to the contrary work against it, our mere continuity of lamentation and the cursing of his killers will not earn us an appreciation from the Imam on the day of resurrection, nor should we expect that our actions will hold value with God.
Now, we are to ask, what was that objective? Did the Imam affirm his claim to authority and rule by virtue of personal right, for which he staked his life to vindicate his claim? Anyone who knows the high moral standard of Imam Husayn’s household cannot harbor the vile notion that they would cause bloodshed among the Muslims to gain political power. Even for a moment if we consider this viewpoint acceptable – the opinion that this family held a personal right to rule- a glance at the fifty year history from Abu Bakr to Amir Muawiyah bears evidence that waging war and causing bloodshed merely to seize power had never been their motive. As a logical corollary, one has to admit that the Imam’s keen eye discerned symptoms of decay and corruption in the system of Muslim society and the Islamic state, and thus he felt impelled to resist these forces –even if it required treading a path of war which he not only considered to be legitimate but an obligation as well.
CHANGE IN THE STATE’S TEMPERAMENT, OBJECTIVE AND RULE
What was that imminent change? Obviously people had not changed their religion. All people including the ruling class had faith in God, the Prophet and the Qur’an in the same manner as they did in the past. Laws for the state had not changed. Judicial courts carried out decisions of matters in the light of the Qur’an and tradition of the Prophet [sunna] during Bani Umayya’s reign, as they were carried out prior to their reign of government. As a matter of fact, no legal change ever took place in any Muslim state in the world prior to the 19th century. Some people highlight Yazid’s personal character, giving currency to a common misunderstanding that the stance taken by Imam and his uprising was to prevent the ascension to power of a man of reprehensible character. But in spite of presenting the worst possible picture of Yazid’s character, and its acceptance thereof, still prevents us to accept, that even if the state is founded on correct principles, the ascension of a man of reprehensible character to the position of governance, is not a matter of concern, that would incur an impatience attitude from Imam Husayn: a man of wisdom, foresight and knowledge of the Shari’a. It is for this reason that the persona of the individual is not the correct reason for the mental perturbation of the Imam. A deep study of history will bring to our realization that Yazid’s nomination as his father’s successor, and his later coronation as king, marked a radical change in the object and conduct of the Islamic Constitution. Although the consequences of this change were not apparent at that instant, a farsighted person could easily comprehend the nature of the change, and the eventuality of the course it embarks upon. It was this change and the catastrophe towards which the Islamic State was heading that Imam foresaw, and he resolved to stake his life to prevent it.
POINT OF DEVIATION
In order to fully understand this situation, we have to find out the characteristic feature of the constitution that had been guiding the state administration for a period of forty years under the leadership of the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs. Further, what were the main features of the administrative system of a new Muslim state taking birth under the aegis of the Umayyad, Abbasid and subsequent dynasties right up from the time of Yazid’s nomination? With this comparative study we shall be able to establish the course of its development, and what course it took after this point of deviation. Also from this comparative study we shall understand why a person who was brought up and trained under the guidance of the Prophet, Sayida Fatima and Hazrat ‘Ali, and who shared the companionship of the best of the companions from his infancy to adulthood, would take a stand and resist the new change –irrespective of the consequences when the point of deviation was setting in.
BEGINNING OF KINGSHIP
The first and foremost feature of the Islamic State would reflect that rather than mere oral assent, a conviction from the heart and conformity of deeds with actions attests and bears witness to the faith (in the following propositions): that the sovereignty of the Muslim state is wholly vested in the Supreme Being; the people are God’s subjects; the rulers are accountable to God; the government does not exercise power over its subjects, nor are the subjects its slaves. The rulers are first to exercise their servitude and bondage to God and then to implement the divine laws among their subjects. Yazid’s nomination as successor marked the beginning of that type of kingship in which the concept of God’s sovereignty was reduced to mere oral assent. Practically, he adopted the same view that has always been maintained by monarchs, i.e. sovereignty is vested in the monarch and his family, and he is the undisputed master of the life, property, honor and every tangible and intangible entity of his subjects. The Divine Law, if instituted in his kingship, was enforced on the subjects; the King, his family, the nobles and the officials were exempted from it.
NEGLECT OF THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO ENJOIN WHAT IS RIGHT AND FORBID WHAT IS WRONG
The objective of the Islamic State was to establish those virtues and their propagation that are dear to God, and to suppress and eradicate those evils that are disliked by Him. But after having chosen the path of monarchy, the objective of the state was none other than indulging in the possession of land, self-aggrandizement, the collection of tribute and the gratification of sensual desires. The monarchs were rarely inclined to serve the purpose of living up to the sacrament of witnessing [the shahada]. The monarchs, their nobles and their officials were instrumental in propagating vice than virtue. Most of the godly persons who contributed their mite to the promotion of good, suppression of vice, preaching the religion of Islam, compiling books on religion and carrying research work in Islamic studies –incurred the displeasure of the rulers and were hardly ever patronized. Despite the opposition of the state authorities they continued to adhere to their mission. Despite these efforts, the mode of life and the policy of the rulers, officers and their subordinates continuously led the Muslim society to moral degradation. For their own personal sake they even surpassed the limits, and did not hesitate to create obstacles in the propagation of Islam, and the worst example of this practice being the imposition of tax on the revert Muslims [those who revert back to Islam after being raised in a state other than submission].
The soul of the Islamic State rests in piety and fear of God, and it’s witnessing is born by the head of the state. The state’s employees, judges and military officers are imbued with this spirit, and in turn they infuse it into the society. But once they tread the path of monarchy, the Muslim states and their rulers adopted the pomp and pageantry of Caesar. Oppression and injustice overruled justice. Instead of righteousness, profligacy and luxury had come into vogue. The failure to distinguish between the lawfulness and unlawfulness of affairs, rendered in a lack of character and actions of the rulers. Politics was no longer cogent with morality. The rulers kept their subjects under fear instead of instilling the fear of God; and instead of awakening their faith and conscious they bought them by virtue of briberies.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC CONSTITUTION
Such was the deplorable change in the spirit, purpose and character of the Muslim rulers. A similar change also appeared in the fundamental principles of the Islamic constitution. While the constitution was based on certain important principles, each of them underwent a transformation.
1. Free Election
A government is to be established on the free consent of the masses and this is the foundation of the Islamic constitution. [This was meant to ensure that] No individual by his struggle be able to secure power for himself, and that the masses should entrust power to best among the candidates after mutual consultation. Allegiance should not be secured based on rulership but be a consequence [of assuming power]. There should be no maneuvering to secure allegiance [or oath of fealty] on the individual’s behalf. Everyone should be free to exercise their right to pay allegiance or to refuse it. Unless the oath of allegiance is secured, no one should seize power; and when confidence is lost [in his rule], no longer should the individual be in a position to rule. Each of the righteous successors to the Prophet came to power according to this prescribed article. In the case of Amir Muawiyah his position [of claim to succession] became dubious. This is the reason why he was not included among the righteous successors [of the Prophet], despite of his being a companion [of the Prophet]. And, eventually it was the drastic event of Yazid’s nomination [as Muawiyah’s successor] that overturned the [validity] of these articles. This resulted in the beginning of a chain of hereditary monarchy –and every since, the Muslims have not been able to revert back to the [principle of] electing a caliph. Now individuals had assumed rule not by virtue of free and consultative deliberations of the masses but by their dint of power. Allegiance was secured through power instead of securing power through allegiance. The masses were not free in giving or holding back their oaths of allegiance. Securing allegiance was no longer a prerequisite of acquiring power. In the first place, people had no option to refuse allegiance to the ruling individual. And even if people refused to give allegiance, the person ruling did not part with it [rule].When Imam Malik during the reign of Mansor Abbasi committed the offense of asking the caliph to abstain from coercive method of securing allegiance, he was flogged and his arms were amputated.
2. Principle of Consultation
The second important article of this constitution was the establishment of a consultative system of government, where advice should be sought from individuals of learned, pious disposition [also possessing] sound judgment, who enjoy the confidence and trust of the masses. During the period of the righteous successors, members of the consultative council were not elected. By modern day standards they were elected by the consent of the people. They were not appointed as advisors by the caliphs because they would serve as “yes men” or [men who would] serve their interests. As a matter of fact, they chose the best persons from amongst the community with all sincerity and an unbiased attitude, who were expected to uphold the truth; express their opinion according to the dictates of their conscience with integrity. There was not the least suspicion that they would permit the government to astray. Had elections been held in this time in accordance with the existing norms, the general Muslims would have reposed confidence in the same persons only. With the advent of the monarchy, the consultative system underwent a transformation. The monarchical administration was based on autocratic and despotic methods. The princes sycophants, courtiers, provincial governors and military commanders served in council as members. Adviser’s positions were assumed only by those persons who, if opinion polls had been taken in their case, would have scored thousands votes of censure against one vote of confidence. The truth loving,
the learned and the God fearing persons who enjoyed public confidence had no value in the eyes of despotic rulers. Instead, they incurred the king’s wrath or were looked upon with suspicion.
3. Freedom for Expression of Opinion
The third principle of the constitution provided for the freedom of expression. The furtherance of virtue and suppression of evils have been enjoined by Islam not only as the right of Muslims, but as an obligation. Freedom of conscience and speech was the pivot on which the Islamic society and state administration functioned in the right direction. The people must have the liberty to find fault with the most prominent among the Muslims in case they went astray and be outspoken in all matters. During the tenure of the righteous caliphs, the rights of the people were not only protected, but the caliphs regarded it as their duty and encouraged the people in the discharge of such a duty. Freedom of speech, giving a warning and demanding an explanation from the Caliph himself was not restricted only to the members of the consultative council, but this was enjoyed by each and every individual Muslim. If they exercised this right, they were not taken to task. On the other hand, their bold step was extolled and applauded. This freedom was not a gift of the ruler, but it was a constitutional right bestowed upon them by Islam and they regarded it as their duty to pay due respect to it [i.e. the masses exercising their rights]. The use of this privilege for the vindication of truth was an obligation entrusted on every Muslim by God and his apostle, and its very purpose served to keep the atmosphere of the society and state congenial for the fulfillment of this obligation, which [upholding this right] was considered to be an integral part of the function of the Caliphate.
With the beginning of monarchy, the voice of conscience was stifled and freedom [for expression of opinion] was denied. Now the norm in session was that if any one had to voice their opinion, it should be in the favor of the ruler, or else they should maintain silence if the urge of conscience was so powerful that one could not desist from declaring the truth, they had to be prepared for the imprisonment or loss of life. This policy, slowly and gradually led the Muslims to a [moral] decay and they became discouraged, turned coward and time servers. The number of individuals who could risk their life by adhering to truth began to diminish. Flattery and wickedness loomed at large in the society and adherence to principles of truth and rectitude loss their value. Highly qualified and honest persons severed their relations with the government. People disliked the monarchical government so much that their hearts held no desire to uphold it. When a new regime emerged to displace the old one, people did not move in support of the later. One regime succeeded another. People witnessed the incoming and out going spectacle as passive spectators without evincing any interest therein.
4. Accountability before the Creator and His Creation
The fourth principle, closely related to the third principle [freedom for expression of opinion], was both the Caliph and his government are accountable before God and God’s creation. As far as the sense of this responsibility is concerned, it kept the righteous caliphs restless day and night. And in relation to the accountability before [God’s] creation, each of them considered himself accountable before the masses. It was not necessary that the caliph should be questioned before the consultative council only after raising a call motion. They faced the public five times, every day in the congregational prayer at the mosque. Every week on Fridays, the caliphs acquainted the masses with the affairs of the state and also lent them ears. They moved about in the market place without being escorted with body-guards and mixed with the people unprotected by a security force. The portals of the government buildings were open and the caliph was accessible to everyone. On all such occasions, one could solicit questions and seek replies. They [the caliphs] had to be ready to be questioned by anyone, at any time. The right to submit questions [to the caliph] was not restricted to the representatives alone, but was enjoyed and exercised by every individual. Caliphs assumed power with the consent of the masses and they [masses] were the supreme authority competent to remove a caliph and elect another in his place. The elected caliph did not, therefore anticipate any threat in meeting the masses, and neither were they afraid of being removed from the office. The monarchist government was devoid of the concept of accountability [before God or His creation]. For them the accountability to the Creator was a mere oral assent and was rarely translated into action. And as to accountability to the masses, nobody had the courage to ask them for an explanation [of their deeds]. Caliphs exercised absolute authority over the them. They had acquired power by the dint of force, and their slogan was a challenge: to those who had the might, to wrestle power from their hands. How can such individuals face the masses, and how can they have access to them? Even when they offered prayers, it was done either in well guarded mosques in special locations, or if in an open place, they were generally surrounded by their close associates. Whenever they went in vehicles, they had an armed police guard both in front and behind to keep the way clear of traffic. There was scarcely any chance of their coming across the public.
Every year, in the month of Muharram, millions of Shi’as and Sunnis alike, mourn Imam Husayn’s martyrdom. It is regrettable, however, that of these mourners very few focus their attention on the objective for which the Imam not only sacrificed his life but also the lives of his kith and kin. It is but natural for his family members and those who foster feelings of love, respect and empathy for his family to express their grief over his martyrdom. The nature of this sadness and grief is apparent universally and also from those who bear relations with them. The moral appreciation and futility of this sentiment with the persona of this individual is nothing more than the love that bears out as a natural consequence with his relatives and sympathizers of his kin. But the question is, what is so particular about Imam Husayn that even though 1320 years have elapsed our grief is afresh? If his martyrdom was not for a sacred objective, the mere continuation of this remembrance on a personal level is meaningless. And in the eyes of Imam Husayn, what value would this mere personal love and devotion hold? If his own self were dearer than the objective, then he would not have sought sacrifice. His sacrifice bears witness that that he held the objective more dear than his own self. Therefore, if we do not work for this objective and to the contrary work against it, our mere continuity of lamentation and the cursing of his killers will not earn us an appreciation from the Imam on the day of resurrection, nor should we expect that our actions will hold value with God.
Now, we are to ask, what was that objective? Did the Imam affirm his claim to authority and rule by virtue of personal right, for which he staked his life to vindicate his claim? Anyone who knows the high moral standard of Imam Husayn’s household cannot harbor the vile notion that they would cause bloodshed among the Muslims to gain political power. Even for a moment if we consider this viewpoint acceptable – the opinion that this family held a personal right to rule- a glance at the fifty year history from Abu Bakr to Amir Muawiyah bears evidence that waging war and causing bloodshed merely to seize power had never been their motive. As a logical corollary, one has to admit that the Imam’s keen eye discerned symptoms of decay and corruption in the system of Muslim society and the Islamic state, and thus he felt impelled to resist these forces –even if it required treading a path of war which he not only considered to be legitimate but an obligation as well.
CHANGE IN THE STATE’S TEMPERAMENT, OBJECTIVE AND RULE
What was that imminent change? Obviously people had not changed their religion. All people including the ruling class had faith in God, the Prophet and the Qur’an in the same manner as they did in the past. Laws for the state had not changed. Judicial courts carried out decisions of matters in the light of the Qur’an and tradition of the Prophet [sunna] during Bani Umayya’s reign, as they were carried out prior to their reign of government. As a matter of fact, no legal change ever took place in any Muslim state in the world prior to the 19th century. Some people highlight Yazid’s personal character, giving currency to a common misunderstanding that the stance taken by Imam and his uprising was to prevent the ascension to power of a man of reprehensible character. But in spite of presenting the worst possible picture of Yazid’s character, and its acceptance thereof, still prevents us to accept, that even if the state is founded on correct principles, the ascension of a man of reprehensible character to the position of governance, is not a matter of concern, that would incur an impatience attitude from Imam Husayn: a man of wisdom, foresight and knowledge of the Shari’a. It is for this reason that the persona of the individual is not the correct reason for the mental perturbation of the Imam. A deep study of history will bring to our realization that Yazid’s nomination as his father’s successor, and his later coronation as king, marked a radical change in the object and conduct of the Islamic Constitution. Although the consequences of this change were not apparent at that instant, a farsighted person could easily comprehend the nature of the change, and the eventuality of the course it embarks upon. It was this change and the catastrophe towards which the Islamic State was heading that Imam foresaw, and he resolved to stake his life to prevent it.
POINT OF DEVIATION
In order to fully understand this situation, we have to find out the characteristic feature of the constitution that had been guiding the state administration for a period of forty years under the leadership of the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs. Further, what were the main features of the administrative system of a new Muslim state taking birth under the aegis of the Umayyad, Abbasid and subsequent dynasties right up from the time of Yazid’s nomination? With this comparative study we shall be able to establish the course of its development, and what course it took after this point of deviation. Also from this comparative study we shall understand why a person who was brought up and trained under the guidance of the Prophet, Sayida Fatima and Hazrat ‘Ali, and who shared the companionship of the best of the companions from his infancy to adulthood, would take a stand and resist the new change –irrespective of the consequences when the point of deviation was setting in.
BEGINNING OF KINGSHIP
The first and foremost feature of the Islamic State would reflect that rather than mere oral assent, a conviction from the heart and conformity of deeds with actions attests and bears witness to the faith (in the following propositions): that the sovereignty of the Muslim state is wholly vested in the Supreme Being; the people are God’s subjects; the rulers are accountable to God; the government does not exercise power over its subjects, nor are the subjects its slaves. The rulers are first to exercise their servitude and bondage to God and then to implement the divine laws among their subjects. Yazid’s nomination as successor marked the beginning of that type of kingship in which the concept of God’s sovereignty was reduced to mere oral assent. Practically, he adopted the same view that has always been maintained by monarchs, i.e. sovereignty is vested in the monarch and his family, and he is the undisputed master of the life, property, honor and every tangible and intangible entity of his subjects. The Divine Law, if instituted in his kingship, was enforced on the subjects; the King, his family, the nobles and the officials were exempted from it.
NEGLECT OF THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO ENJOIN WHAT IS RIGHT AND FORBID WHAT IS WRONG
The objective of the Islamic State was to establish those virtues and their propagation that are dear to God, and to suppress and eradicate those evils that are disliked by Him. But after having chosen the path of monarchy, the objective of the state was none other than indulging in the possession of land, self-aggrandizement, the collection of tribute and the gratification of sensual desires. The monarchs were rarely inclined to serve the purpose of living up to the sacrament of witnessing [the shahada]. The monarchs, their nobles and their officials were instrumental in propagating vice than virtue. Most of the godly persons who contributed their mite to the promotion of good, suppression of vice, preaching the religion of Islam, compiling books on religion and carrying research work in Islamic studies –incurred the displeasure of the rulers and were hardly ever patronized. Despite the opposition of the state authorities they continued to adhere to their mission. Despite these efforts, the mode of life and the policy of the rulers, officers and their subordinates continuously led the Muslim society to moral degradation. For their own personal sake they even surpassed the limits, and did not hesitate to create obstacles in the propagation of Islam, and the worst example of this practice being the imposition of tax on the revert Muslims [those who revert back to Islam after being raised in a state other than submission].
The soul of the Islamic State rests in piety and fear of God, and it’s witnessing is born by the head of the state. The state’s employees, judges and military officers are imbued with this spirit, and in turn they infuse it into the society. But once they tread the path of monarchy, the Muslim states and their rulers adopted the pomp and pageantry of Caesar. Oppression and injustice overruled justice. Instead of righteousness, profligacy and luxury had come into vogue. The failure to distinguish between the lawfulness and unlawfulness of affairs, rendered in a lack of character and actions of the rulers. Politics was no longer cogent with morality. The rulers kept their subjects under fear instead of instilling the fear of God; and instead of awakening their faith and conscious they bought them by virtue of briberies.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC CONSTITUTION
Such was the deplorable change in the spirit, purpose and character of the Muslim rulers. A similar change also appeared in the fundamental principles of the Islamic constitution. While the constitution was based on certain important principles, each of them underwent a transformation.
1. Free Election
A government is to be established on the free consent of the masses and this is the foundation of the Islamic constitution. [This was meant to ensure that] No individual by his struggle be able to secure power for himself, and that the masses should entrust power to best among the candidates after mutual consultation. Allegiance should not be secured based on rulership but be a consequence [of assuming power]. There should be no maneuvering to secure allegiance [or oath of fealty] on the individual’s behalf. Everyone should be free to exercise their right to pay allegiance or to refuse it. Unless the oath of allegiance is secured, no one should seize power; and when confidence is lost [in his rule], no longer should the individual be in a position to rule. Each of the righteous successors to the Prophet came to power according to this prescribed article. In the case of Amir Muawiyah his position [of claim to succession] became dubious. This is the reason why he was not included among the righteous successors [of the Prophet], despite of his being a companion [of the Prophet]. And, eventually it was the drastic event of Yazid’s nomination [as Muawiyah’s successor] that overturned the [validity] of these articles. This resulted in the beginning of a chain of hereditary monarchy –and every since, the Muslims have not been able to revert back to the [principle of] electing a caliph. Now individuals had assumed rule not by virtue of free and consultative deliberations of the masses but by their dint of power. Allegiance was secured through power instead of securing power through allegiance. The masses were not free in giving or holding back their oaths of allegiance. Securing allegiance was no longer a prerequisite of acquiring power. In the first place, people had no option to refuse allegiance to the ruling individual. And even if people refused to give allegiance, the person ruling did not part with it [rule].When Imam Malik during the reign of Mansor Abbasi committed the offense of asking the caliph to abstain from coercive method of securing allegiance, he was flogged and his arms were amputated.
2. Principle of Consultation
The second important article of this constitution was the establishment of a consultative system of government, where advice should be sought from individuals of learned, pious disposition [also possessing] sound judgment, who enjoy the confidence and trust of the masses. During the period of the righteous successors, members of the consultative council were not elected. By modern day standards they were elected by the consent of the people. They were not appointed as advisors by the caliphs because they would serve as “yes men” or [men who would] serve their interests. As a matter of fact, they chose the best persons from amongst the community with all sincerity and an unbiased attitude, who were expected to uphold the truth; express their opinion according to the dictates of their conscience with integrity. There was not the least suspicion that they would permit the government to astray. Had elections been held in this time in accordance with the existing norms, the general Muslims would have reposed confidence in the same persons only. With the advent of the monarchy, the consultative system underwent a transformation. The monarchical administration was based on autocratic and despotic methods. The princes sycophants, courtiers, provincial governors and military commanders served in council as members. Adviser’s positions were assumed only by those persons who, if opinion polls had been taken in their case, would have scored thousands votes of censure against one vote of confidence. The truth loving, the learned and the God fearing persons who enjoyed public confidence had no value in the eyes of despotic rulers. Instead, they incurred the king’s wrath or were looked upon with suspicion.
3. Freedom for Expression of Opinion
The third principle of the constitution provided for the freedom of expression. The furtherance of virtue and suppression of evils have been enjoined by Islam not only as the right of Muslims, but as an obligation. Freedom of conscience and speech was the pivot on which the Islamic society and state administration functioned in the right direction. The people must have the liberty to find fault with the most prominent among the Muslims in case they went astray and be outspoken in all matters. During the tenure of the righteous caliphs, the rights of the people were not only protected, but the caliphs regarded it as their duty and encouraged the people in the discharge of such a duty. Freedom of speech, giving a warning and demanding an explanation from the Caliph himself was not restricted only to the members of the consultative council, but this was enjoyed by each and every individual Muslim. If they exercised this right, they were not taken to task. On the other hand, their bold step was extolled and applauded. This freedom was not a gift of the ruler, but it was a constitutional right bestowed upon them by Islam and they regarded it as their duty to pay due respect to it [i.e. the masses exercising their rights]. The use of this privilege for the vindication of truth was an obligation entrusted on every Muslim by God and his apostle, and its very purpose served to keep the atmosphere of the society and state congenial for the fulfillment of this obligation, which [upholding this right] was considered to be an integral part of the function of the Caliphate.
With the beginning of monarchy, the voice of conscience was stifled and freedom [for expression of opinion] was denied. Now the norm in session was that if any one had to voice their opinion, it should be in the favor of the ruler, or else they should maintain silence if the urge of conscience was so powerful that one could not desist from declaring the truth, they had to be prepared for the imprisonment or loss of life. This policy, slowly and gradually led the Muslims to a [moral] decay and they became discouraged, turned coward and time servers. The number of individuals who could risk their life by adhering to truth began to diminish. Flattery and wickedness loomed at large in the society and adherence to principles of truth and rectitude loss their value. Highly qualified and honest persons severed their relations with the government. People disliked the monarchical government so much that their hearts held no desire to uphold it. When a new regime emerged to displace the old one, people did not move in support of the later. One regime succeeded another. People witnessed the incoming and out going spectacle as passive spectators without evincing any interest therein.
4. Accountability before the Creator and His Creation
The fourth principle, closely related to the third principle [freedom for expression of opinion], was both the Caliph and his government are accountable before God and God’s creation. As far as the sense of this responsibility is concerned, it kept the righteous caliphs restless day and night. And in relation to the accountability before [God’s] creation, each of them considered himself accountable before the masses. It was not necessary that the caliph should be questioned before the consultative council only after raising a call motion. They faced the public five times, every day in the congregational prayer at the mosque. Every week on Fridays, the caliphs acquainted the masses with the affairs of the state and also lent them ears. They moved about in the market place without being escorted with body-guards and mixed with the people unprotected by a security force. The portals of the government buildings were open and the caliph was accessible to everyone. On all such occasions, one could solicit questions and seek replies. They [the caliphs] had to be ready to be questioned by anyone, at any time. The right to submit questions [to the caliph] was not restricted to the representatives alone, but was enjoyed and exercised by every individual. Caliphs assumed power with the consent of the masses and they [masses] were the supreme authority competent to remove a caliph and elect another in his place. The elected caliph did not, therefore anticipate any threat in meeting the masses, and neither were they afraid of being removed from the office. The monarchist government was devoid of the concept of accountability [before God or His creation]. For them the accountability to the Creator was a mere oral assent and was rarely translated into action. And as to accountability to the masses, nobody had the courage to ask them for an explanation [of their deeds]. Caliphs exercised absolute authority over the them. They had acquired power by the dint of force, and their slogan was a challenge: to those who had the might, to wrestle power from their hands. How can such individuals face the masses, and how can they have access to them? Even when they offered prayers, it was done either in well guarded mosques in special locations, or if in an open place, they were generally surrounded by their close associates. Whenever they went in vehicles, they had an armed police guard both in front and behind to keep the way clear of traffic. There was scarcely any chance of their coming across the public.
5. The Public Treasury, a Trust
The fifth principle of the Islamic constitution laid down that the public treasury was God’s property and a trust from the Muslims. Nothing should be received except through lawful means, and nothing should be spent on except lawful purposes. The Caliph enjoyed only so much jurisdiction over it as a trustee has over the property of a minor orphan under his custody, as [the Qur’an says IV:6 Whoever is rich, let him abstain altogether, and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably. The Caliph was to be accountable for its income and expenditure and the Muslims held every right to ask the caliph for its distribution as well. The righteous Caliphs meticulously followed this principle. Whatever was deposited in the treasury was done so according to the principles of Islamic law, and whatever was spent was done so for due needs. Whoever was well-to-do, performed honorary services without drawing a single penny from the public treasury towards his remuneration. Moreover, he never hesitated to spend out of his pocket for the nation. Those who could not serve without emoluments, they took the minimum to meet the essential requirements of life. Every reasonable person would admit that the remuneration they took was far less than what was actually due. Even a hostile critic would not dare to criticize it. Every Muslim had the right to demand the accounts of the income and expenditure of the public treasury, and the Caliphs were always prepared for accountability. A common man could submit a question to the Caliph: how he was able to prepare such a lengthy tunic for himself although the dimensions of the sheets of the cloth received from Yemen could not make one of so big a size? But when the Caliphate degenerated into monarchy, the public treasury became the exclusive property of the monarch instead of the Divine and of the masses. Money was being received both through lawful and unlawful resources and squandered in legal and illegal ways. No one dared to hold them accountable. The entire revenue of the state was a source of enjoyment which was being exploited by everyone from an ordinary letter bearer right up to the state administrator, according to their capabilities. They were completely unmindful of the fact that authority over administration was not a license for misappropriating the public trust. They were fully convinced that they could continue to devour the public treasury and no one would hold them accountable [for their deeds].
6. Rule of the Law
The sixth principle of this constitution was that the country will be governed by law (i.e. the law of God and His prophet). Nobody should be over-and-above the law, nor should they transgress the limits demarcated by law. There should be uniform legal provision for all from a common man to the head of the state, and its enforcement should be for all without discrimination. Partiality should not be allowed to intrude into matters of justice and equity, and the courts of law should be free from being influenced. The righteous Caliphs had set the best example of adherence to this principle. In spite of enjoying more power than monarchs, they strictly adhered to this Divine Law. Friendship and nepotism never induced the Caliphs to ignore the prescribed rules and regulations, nor their displeasure caused harm to any one against the canons of the Islamic law. If any one happened to infringe their right, the matter was referred to court, just like an ordinary citizen. In case some one had a complaint against them, grievances were addressed in the court of law. Similarly the governors and commanders in chief were held in the grip of law, and no one dared influence the judge in the judicial matters. Anyone who contravened the provisions of the law had no chance of escaping the legal consequences. No sooner the Caliphate was converted to monarchism, this article [of the constitution] was consigned to oblivion. Not only the kings, princes, nobles, officials and commanders, but even favorite valets and maid servants connected with the palace were considered over and above the law. People were physically and morally at their mercy. There were two balances of justice: one for the strong weak and second for the influential. Pressure was brought to bear on the judges’ decisions in the courts, and those who observed integrity in deciding cases had to pay a heavy price for their integrity and scrupulous regard for justice. The God-fearing jurists preferred bearing torture and imprisonment to becoming instrumental in perpetrating aggression and high-handedness, lest they fall prey to Divine chastisement.
7. Complete Equality in Rights and Status
The seventh principle of the Islamic Constitution pertained to complete equality in rights and status, which was completely assured in the early period of the Islamic State. There was no distinction among the Muslims on the basis of race, language and place of birth. No one enjoyed superiority over another on the basis of clan, family and race. There was equality in the rights and status of all those who believed in God and His Apostle. If preference was to be accorded, it was accorded based on character, capability attitude and service. When the Caliphate was replaced with monarchism, the demons of prejudice and bigotry raised their heads. The tribes related to the monarchs were assigned position of advantages over other tribes. Prejudice and distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs was revived and conflicts emerged. History bears witness to the extent of damage caused to the Islamic entity by these factional wranglings.
IMAM HUSAYN’S CHARACTER AS A BELIEVER
These were the changes that appeared in the wake of converting the Islamic Caliphate into a monarchy. No one can deny that Yazid’s nomination as successor to his father was the starting point of all these transformations. It cannot be gainsaid that after a short span of time from the point of origin, all the corrupt practices mentioned above came into existence. At the time when this revolutionary step was taken, even though these evils had not yet surfaced, a man of vision could have predicted these inevitable consequences of such a beginning. And predicted that the reforms introduced by Islam in the administrative and political phases of the state would be rendered null and void by these changes. This is the reason why Imam Husayn could not remain indifferent, and he decided to stem the tide of the evil forces by taking the risk of confronting the worst consequences by rising in revolt against an established government. The consequences of this bold stand are known to every one. The fact which the Imam wanted to emphasize, by plunging himself into grave danger and enduring its consequences heroically, was that the fundamental features of an Islamic State are valuable assets. It would not be a bad bargain if a believer sacrificed his life and had his family members slain in return for this valuable objective. A believer should not hesitate to sacrifice all that he possesses for preventing the changes which constitutes a danger to the religion of Islam and the Muslim community which is a custodian of the principles mentioned above. One is at liberty to contemptuously disregard it as merely a maneuver for securing political power, but in the eyes of Husayn Ibn ‘Ali, it was primarily a religious obligation. He therefore laid down his life in this cause gaining the crown of martyrdom.
A registered non-political educational Trust having a vast reputation in the educational field of the entire Jammu & Kashmir region. It is a popular educational institution compared by none. It has provided tremendous services in its peculiar field but unfortunately it became a victim of the state high-handedness without any fault. It has nothing to do with the politics or different political ideologies in vogue in this region but still then certain baseless allegations are leveled against this noble institution whose tremendous services in educating the society and promotion of the education amongst the poor and downtrodden class of the society are unparalleled. It teaches the students both male and female without any discrimination of colour, creed or region on very low tuition fee. It has always adhered to the law of the land strictly and never infringed any law or the rule or the regulation, whatsoever. It never indulged in any activity other than the academic one and always remained aloof from the political differences common in th society. It provided its noble services to all and sundry, without considering the political or religious affiliation of the students or their families. Falah-e-Aam Trust is a Govt. registered educational institution affiliated to the JK BOSE and always taught according to the Government approved curricula and courses of study and all the allegations regarding imparting any radical or fanatic ideology by the Trust are unfounded and false, spread by a vicious defamatory propaganda, the result of which was that the Govt. banned the Trust on 11th May , 1990 declaring the Trust as an unlawful associationunder the unlawful Activities (P) Act 1967. Though the ban was not confirmed as required under the law and the Trust started its functions very soon thereafter and kept on serving the nation with all enthusiasm by dissemination of knowledge throughout the region of Jammu and Kashmir in far flung areas where there were even no Govt. schools. Thousands of students, both male and female were taught in the schools under the proper guidance of the Trust.
Some Distinctive Features and Achievements of the Trust from 1989 to 2021 are given hereunder:
Total No. of outgoing students from the schools
affiliated with the Trust 29350
No. of students qualifying NEET Examination. 1730
No. of students passing MBBS 956
No. of students passing B.E 825
No. of students serving in police and other security agencies. 3931
No. of students joining politics 76
No. of students becoming *Scientists 46 *Professors 1190 *Govt. Lecturers 997 *Govt. Teachers 2531 *Lawyers 213 *Judicial officers 12 *IPS officers 02 *KAS officers 03 *IRS officers 02 *IFS officers 02 *Technicians 457 These are 12973 in total where as the citizens who are playing prominent role in social field are in thousands , who are engaged in different fields serving the nation with their abilities. A good number of athletes, orators, mediators and jurists produced by the Trust have achieved a fame by their good and excellent performances . Furthermore the Trust has provided free education out of its meager sources of income to the orphans (3520) and the children of the poor families (2500) and thereby participating in the noble work of eradicating the illiteracy from the society. The Trust has played a prominent role in this aspect which is appreciated by all those who are somehow having the knowledge of the activities and performances of the Trust.The Trust has assisted the Govt. in eradication of unemployment as it has recruited hundreds of teaching and non-teaching staff in its institutions and offices. Thus the role of the Trust in eradication of the poverty from the society is also commendable but unfortunately the Trust is looked upon by the Govt. agencies with suspicion though it has been time and again clarified that the Trust is a non-political entity engaged in spreading the education throughout J&K without any discrimination of region or religion but its clarifications were not considered seriously. That is why it is still the target of the political vendetta. The Trust once again makes it amply clear that it has no political ambitions and works exclusively for the dissemination of knowledge and eradication of illiteracy in the society. Besides the Govt. approved courses of study, the Trust provides the moral teachings among the students so as to recreate the sense of being positive and sincere citizens of the nation. The Trust never preaches anything which may develop any feelings of religious or regional hatred or extreme ideologies amongst its students and all such allegations are totally baseless and vehemently refuted. The Trust helps the student community to understand their social and moral responsibilities towards the society and the nation so that they can participate with all their abilities and capabilities in forming a strong, prosperous and peaceful nation.
Depression affects millions of people worldwide, and this number only seems to be growing. The World Health Organization puts the number of people who are depressed at around 350 million, but this number only represents the people actually diagnosed. Those who suffer silently and choose not to get help out of embarrassment, shame, or pride might make that number jump significantly.
Maybe the person suffering doesn’t even know that they have a problem, which makes silent depression even more dangerous. However, some people simply don’t know how to express their emotions, or don’t feel comfortable doing so. This is why we all need to look out for the people in our lives, and watch for the signs and behaviors that someone is silently depressed.
Here and 7 signs that someone might be silently depressed:
“People think depression is sadness. People think depression is crying. People think depression is dressing in black. But people are wrong. Depression is the constant feeling of being numb. Being numb to emotions, being numb to life. You wake up in the morning just to go back to bed again.” – Unknown
1. Withdrawal from activities, work, or school
Withdrawal from activities is one of the key signs of depression; this occurs because the disorder takes up all of the person’s time and energy. Depression makes it very difficult to carry on with daily life, aside from what is absolutely necessary, because the pain becomes too great. Those who suffer silently might start dropping one or two activities from their schedule in hopes that no one will notice. Many who suffer don’t want to admit they have a problem and don’t want others to know about it.
If you notice that a loved one is starting to miss out on life, then this is a sign of silent depression.
2. No energy
No surprise here – depression zaps a person’s energy levels to the point where even getting out of bed can seem like running a marathon. The constant, intrusive thoughts of hopelessness and despair combined with high stress, poor appetite, and sleep troubles make life a daily battle. A person that suffers silently from depression might even start withdrawing from friendships and family life because they have no energy left for them.
3. Eating too much or too little
Increased or decreased appetite is a common symptom of depression. Gary Kennedy, MD, director of geriatric psychiatry at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, New York, says, “A sudden change in weight, either gaining or losing, can be a warning of depression, especially in someone who has other symptoms of depression or a history of depression.” If you notice unusual eating habits in a friend or loved one, they could be suffering silently from depression.
4. Trouble sleeping
According to WebMD, 80% of adults with depression have trouble falling or staying asleep. Patients who have chronic insomnia have three times the likelihood of developing depression compared to those without insomnia. Many doctors believe that treating insomnia will help reduce depressive symptoms in people suffering. If someone you know complains of sleep problems on a regular basis, he or she might have depression.
5. Substance abuse
Sadly, substance abuse is common among those with depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders. While it’s understandable to want to escape reality and troubled thoughts for a while, addiction can cause even more problems down the road. If you know someone abuses drugs or alcohol on a regular basis, they might be silently depressed.
6. Faking emotions
A lot of people with depression don’t want to admit it, either to themselves or others. When in others’ company, they will appear overly happy or give vague answers when people ask about how their life is going. They only engage in shallow conversation because they want to avoid judgment cast upon them about their depression. If you notice someone has become distant or only makes small talk, this might point to hidden depression.
7. They have become a workaholic
You might not think of overworking as a symptom of depression, but some people use work to cover up their emotions. They see work as an excuse to escape how they feel, a distraction for the torment that their mind causes them. If you notice someone staying late at work most nights of the week, they might actually be silently depressed and not just a workaholic.
Final thoughts
Depression seems like a monster in the minds of those who suffer from it, which makes it critical for them to get the help they need. If you notice someone showing any of the abovementioned signs, don’t hesitate to offer them a shoulder to cry on or an ear to listen. If we all look out for one another, we might just put the stigma surrounding depression to rest and make people feel more comfortable and willing to get the treatment they need.
The country will now face early elections after days of brinkmanship in which Mr. Khan tried to dissolve Parliament to head off the no-confidence vote.
Imran Khan, center, last month during National Day in Islamabad. He was ousted as Pakistan’s prime minister on Saturday, losing a no-confidence vote in Parliament.Credit…Anjum Naveed/Associated Press
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Imran Khan, the former international cricket star turned politician who oversaw a new era of Pakistan’s foreign policy that distanced the country from the United States, was removed as prime minister early on Sunday after losing a no-confidence vote in Parliament.
The vote, coming amid soaring inflation and a rift between Mr. Khan’s government and the military, capped a political crisis that has embroiled the country for weeks and came down to the wire in a parliamentary session that dragged into the early morning hours. Pakistan remains in a state of turmoil as it heads into an early election season in the coming months.
Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation with the world’s second-largest Muslim population, has struggled with instability and military coups since its founding 75 years ago. While no prime minister in Pakistan has ever completed a full five-year term in office, Mr. Khan is the first to be removed in a no-confidence vote.
The motion to oust Mr. Khan was passed with 174 votes, two more than the requisite simple majority.
Analysts expect that lawmakers will choose the opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif, a member of a Pakistani political dynasty, to serve as interim prime minister until the next general election, probably in October. Mr. Khan is expected to run in that election as well.
The vote in Parliament began just before midnight on Saturday after a chaotic day of political scrambling in the capital, Islamabad, as Mr. Khan’s allies appeared to be trying to delay a decision — stoking fears that the military might intervene.
Opponents of Mr. Khan gathering outside the Parliament building in Islamabad late Saturday before the no-confidence vote was held.Credit…Saiyna Bashir for The New York Times
Late Saturday night, with the two political factions at an impasse, the country’s powerful intelligence chief met with Mr. Khan.
The Supreme Court also signaled that it would open at midnight, should the court need to intervene. Police officers and prison vans waited outside the Parliament building lest the proceedings turned violent.
At 11:45 p.m., in protest of the no-confidence vote, lawmakers in Mr. Khan’s political coalition stormed out of the National Assembly hall.
Opposition lawmakers then proceeded with the no-confidence vote.
Mr. Khan has repeatedly said that the opposition’s moves against him were part of a United States-backed conspiracy to oust him from power and he called for his supporters to protest on Sunday.
“Your future is at stake,” Mr. Khan said in a televised address on Friday night. “If you do not take a stand to protect the sovereignty of our country, we will continue to remain subservient.” He added: “The nation has to rise together to save Pakistan.”
Mr. Khan, 69, had parlayed his athletic stardom into a populist political career, promising to rid the country of endemic corruption, set the sputtering economy back on track, and build a “new Pakistan” that he described as an Islamist welfare state.
But economic realities, including huge government debt and three straight years of double-digit inflation, thwarted his plans and undermined his popularity. Tackling corruption proved easier said than done. His shift away from the West and closer to China and Russia was polarizing.
A supporter of Mr. Khan outside the Parliament building in Islamabad late Saturday.Credit…Saiyna Bashir for The New York Times
And, perhaps most crucially, he appeared to have lost the support of the country’s powerful military in a dispute over its leadership.
That paved the way for a coalition of opposition partiesto mount a no-confidence motion last month. But in a stunning bid to block the vote, he and his allies dissolved Parliament moments before it was expected to take place on April 3.
The public rebuke to his leadership from both the country’s courts and lawmakers, including some of his allies, has cost him significant political capital and eroded the aura of indomitability he had maintained for years.
But in a country where ousted political leaders are known to return in second and even third acts, Mr. Khan has shown no signs of backing down, and most analysts expect that he will run in the next elections.
“I don’t think that Imran is out of Pakistan’s politics,” said Ayesha Siddiqa, a political analyst at SOAS University of London. “He’s already in a better position, he’s completely distracted attention from inflation, from the economy, to this question of foreign conspiracy, and it’s benefiting him.”
Born to an affluent family in Lahore, Mr. Khan first rose to prominence in the late 1970s as an international cricket star, becoming the face of the sport at a time when cricketers from the former British Empire were beginning to regularly beat their former colonizer. Mr. Khan helped lead Pakistan to win the Cricket World Cup in 1992 — the country’s greatest sporting achievement.
His success on the cricket field and upper-class upbringing gave him a life of privilege and glamour. Throughout the 1980s, Mr. Khan was a regular fixture in London’s fashionable crowd, and he earned a reputation as a playboy.
In 1996, he turned to politics, establishing his own party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, pitching himself as a reformer and promising an alternative to Pakistan’s entrenched political dynasties.
Despite his mass popularity and appeal, he struggled to make political inroads for over a decade. He was mocked for his political ambitions and for the blatant contradictions between his lavish lifestyle and his efforts to rebrand himself as a devout Muslim who identified with the poor and disavowed his English-speaking peers.
Mr. Khan addressing the nation after his election victory in 2018. He had wide support for his anti-corruption platform and his criticism of the United States, and was significantly boosted by the military’s support for his candidacy. Credit…Farooq Naeem/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
But by 2011, Mr. Khan seemed to find his political footing. His rallies began to draw hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis from the urban middle-class and educated young people who felt disgruntled with the system and energized by his populist, anti-corruption message and his criticism of the United States.
In 2018, he was elected prime minister — a victory many of his rivals attributed to a back room deal struck with the military. Politicians with other parties described a campaign of coercion and intimidation by the security forces that effectively narrowed the election field and sent a message that opposition to Mr. Khan was strongly discouraged. Military officials have denied those accusations, as have Mr. Khan and his aides.
But analysts said that he also over-promised, backing incoherent, often contradictory policies: He supported a deregulated, free-market economy but also a welfare state. He publicly opposed Islamic militance but his government and the military establishment provided a safe haven for the Taliban in northwestern Pakistan.
In a desperate bid to stabilize the economy, he turned to the International Monetary Fund for a $6 billion rescue package in 2019, a move many saw as betraying his election promise to never take foreign loans and aid.
As criticism of his leadership mounted, Mr. Khan’s government led a growing clampdown on dissent. Opposition parties criticized his anti-corruption drive as one-sided, accusing him of going after his opponents with a vengeance while turning a blind eye to accusations that swirled around his cabinet members and close friends. Still, unlike many of his predecessors, he has not been accused of corruption himself.
Human rights groups criticized his government for cracking down on the media, in particular. Several leading journalists known to be critical of Mr. Khan lost their jobs; others were intimidated, detained and threatened in organized social media campaigns, according toHuman Rights Watch.
Still, his supporters have defended his record, which includes doling out government subsidies, building shelters and soup kitchens for the poor, and providing health care to low and middle-income households.
During his term, Pakistan weathered the coronavirus pandemic relatively well, spared the devastation witnessed in some other parts of the world despite early problems with an overwhelmed and undersupplied health care system. Mr. Khan attributed the success to a well-coordinated national effort, amplified by help from the military.
A military outpost in Khyber District, Pakistan, near the Afghan border, in August.Credit…Anjum Naveed/Associated Press
But his foreign policy decisions became a point of contention.
Seeking more independence from the West, he disengaged from the so-called war on terrorism. Last June, he said Pakistan would “absolutely not” allow the C.I.A. to use bases inside Pakistan for counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. After the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan last year, even before American troops and officials had fully withdrawn from the country, he praised Afghans for having “broken the chains of slavery.”
But the critical blow to his leadership came last year after Pakistan’s military leaders appeared to withdraw their support, undercutting the political stability he had enjoyed for most of his tenure.
In recent months, the military establishment has eased its grip on opposition parties, analysis say, paving the way for the no-confidence motion. Days before the vote was expected take place last Sunday, Mr. Khan appeared to have lost a majority in Parliament and was facing demands to resign.
A poster of Mr. Khan in front of the National Assembly in Islamabad on Monday.Credit…Saiyna Bashir for The New York Times
But he remained defiant, accusing his opponents of being pawns in a U.S.-led plot to remove him, and claiming that a communiqué from a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States contained proof of a conspiracy. He urged Pakistanis to stand up to the “forces of evil” and exhorted them to stand against his opponents, whom he called “slaves of America.”
Shehbaz Sharif is expected to take over as interim prime minister until the next general election. Mr. Sharif is the younger brother of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and a former chief minister of Punjab, the country’s most populous and prosperous province.
The interim government he is expected to lead will inherit significant challenges, from soaring inflation to an increasingly polarized political climate that could spiral into unrest on the street.
“This crisis has created serious problems for Pakistan, with respect to the economy, political polarization and our foreign policy,” said Ijaz Khan, the former chairman of the department of international relations at the University of Peshawar. “Leading the country out of that will be a serious challenge for any future government
Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Kashmir’s tallest pro-freedom leader, addressing a rally in Sopore, in 2013. He was a three-time MLA from the Sopore constituency. Geelani died on 1 September 2021, at the age of 91.
It was the evening of the first day of September. A normal day in Kashmir had come to end, and I was having dinner with my family at our home in Srinagar. I received a phone call from a media colleague, informing me that 91-year-old Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the former head of the Hurriyat Conference and the tallest pro-freedom leader in Kashmir, had died. Without finishing my dinner, I left for Geelani’s home in the city’s Hyderpora area. I met a few Jammu & Kashmir Police and paramilitary personnel at the edge of the neighborhood. One police official, in civil dress, confirmed the news of his death to me. He allowed me to head towards Geelani’s home.
Standing outside the walls of his home, I was suddenly reminded of the uprising in the summer of 2016, which followed the death of the militant commander Burhan Wani. Having been in house arrest for years, Geelani had led a slogan campaign against the Indian administration’s crackdown in Kashmir from the confines of his residence. He painted on his wall: “Go India Go Back.”
On the night of his death, the walls were quiet. Street lights had been turned off, shrouding his home in darkness. Personnel from the special-operations group of the police were cordoning off his home with concertina wire. When they saw me, they asked why I had come. I said that I was a journalist, but they asked me to leave, even chasing me towards the main road. Meanwhile, more police vehicles arrived. One policeman took out his baton while insisting that I leave. Soon, the Indian state ensured that sun did not rise in Kashmir before Geelani was buried.
Over the next few hours, Hyderpora became a fortress. As Geelani’s family and relatives remained confined inside his residence with his body, the presence of security forces outside swelled, preventing anyone from leaving or entering the area. The Indian Army, J&K Police, the Central Reserved Police Force and the Border Security Forces—all showed up. One police official told me that around seven hundred personnel had been deployed to only 500 square meters in Hyderpora, around Geelani’s home. When I shot a video of the personnel arriving, a police official asked me to delete the footage. Barricades and concertina were going up across the Valley. By around midnight, Vijay Kumar, the inspector general of police in Kashmir, announced strict restrictions, including suspension of mobile and internet services.
In 2016, after the death of the militant commander Burhan Wani, pro-freedom youth in Kashmir began massive protests. Having been under house arrest for years, Geelani led a slogan campaign against the Indian administration’s crackdown on the protestors, from the confines of his residence. He painted on his wall: “Go India Go Back.”APHC
The forces stopped not just journalists but even Geelani’s relatives from reaching his home. “Around 10 pm, when the news of his death broke, a few of our relatives arrived,” Naseem, Geelani’s 52-year-old younger son, told me over the phone. “But due to restrictions, all our relatives couldn’t come.” Naseem described Geelani’s last moments. “His oxygen concentration was low. We tried pumping his heart but couldn’t revive him,” Naseem said. “He was restless during the day. His last conversation was just to ask if everyone was fine—if the children are fine. He only spoke about the family, nothing else.”
A little after midnight, I saw heavy security—including personnel from the 53 Rashtriya Rifles regiment of the Indian Army and the BSF—surrounding a local graveyard, a few minutes from Geelani’s home. I asked a senior police official standing nearby where would Geelani would be buried. He told me: “Inshallahdafnawun yeti”—God willing, here only. Several locals had been taken inside to dig the grave. A local journalist who tried to enter the graveyard told me that he was dragged out. “Police officers told me to cooperate and stated it is a law-and-order situation,” he said.
Geelani’s family said that security forces forcibly buried his body in the middle of the night. “We were thinking that by 9 am in the morning, all of our relatives will arrive and we will do the burial. But the police didn’t agree and they told us we have to bury him before dawn,” Naseem told me.“We resisted but the police raided our house. They also broke the door and took the body forcibly. They put it in an ambulance around 3.10 am.”
A picture of Geelani on a car heading to a rally in Sopore. He enjoyed a mass popularity among Kashmiris for his defiant pro-freedom stance. During these rallies, he was welcomed by a popular slogan, “Na jhukney wala Geelani, na bikne wala Geelani”—The man who doesn’t bow, the man who doesn’t compromise.
Naseem said that the family asked the police to carry out the funeral per Geelani’s last wishes. “We told an SSP rank official that his last wish was to be buried at Mazar-e Shahudha”—a burial site in Eidgah, whose name translates to “the martyr’s graveyard.” But the police refused. “They told us they had to bury him. So, we told them to do it themselves,” Naseem said. According to him, no one from the close family was present at the burial.
In videosshared widely on social media, security personnel can be seen inside a room where women are gathered, wailing in mourning. Geelani’s body can be seen, wrapped in a Pakistani flag—in accordance with his last wishes. Though politically Geelani advocated for the Kashmiri peoples’ right to self-determination, his personal choice was the nation of Pakistan. The Indian government always saw him as a major roadblock in its plans for Kashmir. In one of my interactions with Geelani, he had told me, “My wish would be to merge with Pakistan but if people Kashmir choose Independent Kashmir, I would be happy. But if people choose India, I would prefer to leave Kashmir.”
Geelani’s funeral ended by around 4.30 am. The only confirmation of this was that top security officials left the spot in a cavalcade, leaving behind hundreds of troops to guard the piece of land where the leader’s body now rested.
Nazir Ahmad, a resident of Hyderpora who participated in the funeral prayers, told me that around fifty people were present. “Twenty were locals, five were his distant relatives and others were cops in civvies.” Ahmad told me that police performed the ablution—a ritual washing of the body that is to be performed by the family—along with a few locals. In a video shared on social media, police officers could be seen present while the coffin was placed next to the grave.
Born in 1929, Geelani was 18 when India was partitioned. As a young man, he was an imam, and had studied the Quran in Lahore in the mid 1940s. He began his political career as an admirer of Indian secular democracy, under the mentorship of the national conference leader Mohammed Syed Masood. A devout Muslim, Geelani soon became submerged in the Islamist philosophy of the Jama’at-e-Islami, which advocates for governance under Islamic law and autonomy for Kashmir. He was influenced heavily by the works of Abu Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jama’at. In the 1970s and 80s, Geelani was elected to the legislative assembly three times, from Sopore, on a Jama’at ticket. He was elected again in the 1987 assembly election in Kashmir, which the Indian government was accused of rigging and which triggered an armed militancy in the region. As the militancy grew, Geelani resigned his seat, in 1989. He became opposed to any participation in Indian democracy, believing it to be a sham—a stand he maintained until his death.
Geelani at a mosque in Sopore in 2013, prior to performing the ritual ablutions before prayer.
Geelani at a market in the Lal Chowk area, in 2012.
In Kashmir, even the tallest political leaders have eventually lost credibility, after compromising on the demand for autonomy. Even Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the founder of the National Conference who is often referred to as the Lion of Kashmir, fell from Kashmiris’ graces after he signed an agreement with the Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi. Geelani was the only leader whose stance remained unflinching, winning him a steady mass following across the region. He was known for always standing up to both the Indian and Pakistani governments, snubbing anyone who did not support the right to self-determination for Kashmir. (In a 2010 profile of Geelani in this publication, titled “The man who says no to New Delhi,” Mehboob Jeelani reported the account of a meeting between the pro-freedom leader and Pervez Musharraf, when the latter was serving as president of Pakistan. Geelani was apparently so tough on the Pakistani premier that Musharraf never invited him for talks again.)
Geelani consistently demanded an adherence to the plebiscite promised to Kashmiris by the United Nations and by India, in 1948. For the pro-freedom Kashmiri youth, Geelani was the supreme leader. Even the previous generation, much of which once revered Sheikh Abdullah, saw a beacon of hope in Geelani.
While reporting in Kashmir over the past decade, I closely covered several of Geelani’s rallies. I saw people express their allegiance and reverence even in front of his images and posters. During these rallies, he was welcomed by a popular slogan, “Na jhukney wala Geelani, na bikne wala Geelani”—The man who doesn’t bow, the man who doesn’t compromise. He himself would say: “Zanjeerein katengi Inshallah!”—the shackles will be broke, god willing. When the funeral prayers for Geelani ended, Kashmir had been silenced. No one was able to raise a slogan for him. Naseem, his son, told me that the family was only able to visit the grave the next morning.
Since 2010, Geelani had been kept under house arrest, with security personnel surrounding his house at all times. He remained absent from the news and the public eye, reaching out to the people only through videos and issued statements. In one video from 2018, Geelani can be seenknocking on the gate of his own house, which was locked from the outside. He is heard saying: “Darwaza kholo, tumhare jamhooriyat ka janaza nikal raha hai”—open the door, the funeral of Indian democracy is underway. “You had said that I am free, and can go anywhere I please,” Geelani then tells the officers on the other side. “At least open the door, I am not going to fly away.” Sheikh Abdul Rasheed, a 40-year-old resident of Srinagar who was close to the Geelani, told me, “India conducted the funeral of its democracy when they buried Geelani in the dark.” He added, “His funeral has created another black spot on India’s democracy.”
Security personnel posted outside Geelani’s home ask journalists for their details before allowing entry. In a decade of reporting in Kashmir, the police often questioned Tantray about his visits to the house.
Geelani lived a modest life in his home in Hyderpora, where he was under house arrest since 2010.
Geelani always shunned the mainstream Indian media—he often said that it demonised Kashmir and Kashmiris. His interactions with mainstream news channels were limited and bitter. In 2012, Geelani walked out of an interview with Arnab Goswami, the editor of the Times Now channel at the time. He accused Arnab of making false claims and speaking “like an activist on behalf of the government.” In an interview regarding the interaction, he heavily criticised Indian media, saying it was “portraying such an image of Kashmiri that every other person thinks [of] us like [a] second Osama Bin Laden.”
On the night of 1 September, as security forces in Hyderpora chased most journalists away from Geelani’s home, some media houses were allowed to stay. I saw senior police officials giving quotes to a cameraperson from Republic TV, the channel that Goswami currently owns and heads.
Until the morning, I was waiting at the Hyderpora flyover with a few colleagues. A Special Operations Group posted there personnel told me, “Now in the coming days, we have to guard the grave so that his body isn’t taken back, because of his respect and popularity among the people.” Another policeman said, “We have reached a time when India is trying to Hinduise Kashmir and desecrating dead Muslims.”
Some officers from the military’s intelligence wing were present as well. I asked one of them for a comment on the situation. “Things will be under control, now that we have successfully managed his funeral,” he said. I asked him what he thought would happen in Kashmir over the next five years. “Are you aware of MRM?” he asked me, referring to the Muslim Rashtriya Manch, a wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the ideological parent of the ruling BJP. I told him I was. “Kashmiris should join MRM,” he said.
Around 7 am, I left for home. I stopped at a bakery shop on the way. One of the people standing there asked me, “Janab, janaza pourkhaz Geelani sahabs?”—Has Geelani sahab’s funeral ended? I told him it had. He began crying.
“The government proved his credibility by imposing such strict curfew and shutting phones,” Rasheed, who was close to Geelani, told me. “We were not allowed to offer prayers but what people feel for him will remain there. We had promised him that we will be on his path. He stood on the path of truth and didn’t compromise and we are proud of it.”
“We use to call him Bab,” Rasheed said—the father, or the beloved. “We have lost a father of Kashmir.” He continued, “Kashmir did not see any brave and staunch person like him. He was not communal. His hold on Islamic values was the reason that he is popular among us.” He added, “We consider him a martyr, because he died in custody. He died under siege—his house was turned into a jail. For us, it’s an unbearable loss.” The day after Geelani’s death, a resident of Hyderpora said that the local graveyard would turn into a shrine to Geelani, and be marked as a “sacred spot.” On Friday, 3 September, mosques across the Valley held prayers for the departed leader.
Geelani maintained a daily ritual of writing in his diary, recording the day’s events, before reading his evening namaz.
Geelani releasing an online campaign for political prisoners in 2012. After being put under house arrest in 2010, he gradually moulded his resistance movement, believing that every mode of media should be used to reach people.
In a statement released on the evening of 2 September, the J&K police denied that it had forcibly buried the Kashmiri leader. “Some vested interests tried to spread baseless rumours about forcible burial of SAS Geelani by Police. Such baseless reports which are as a part of false propaganda to incite violence are totally refuted by the Police,” the statement said. “As a matter of fact, Police instead facilitated in bringing the dead-body from house to graveyard as there were apprehensions of miscreants taking undue advantage of the situation. The relatives of the deceased participated in the burial.” Vijay Kumar, the IG police, did not respond to my queries regarding the burial.
On 2 September, the J&K police registered a first-information report against Geelani’s family members and relatives under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for draping his body in a Pakistani flag and for allegedly raising “anti-national” slogans.
Geelani addressing a rally in Sopore 2012. In Kashmir, even the tallest political leaders have eventually fallen from grace, after compromising on the demand for autonomy. Geelani’s unflinching stance won him a steady mass following across the region, across generations.
In the three days since Geelani’s death, restrictions on communications and movement continued in the Valley. Mobile services were restored on the night of 3 September. The police said in a statement that internet services will remain suspended until the afternoon of 5 September. Sofi Sajad, a resident of Kralpora town in the Budgam district, told me how an octogenarian neighbour of his died of natural causes on 2 September. “They have relatives in Nishat and Shalimar, they were wondering how to inform them. They were not sure of how to go anywhere because of the deployment,” he said. Sajad and a few other friends then decided to risk travelling through the restrictions to these areas, to inform the family members. Then, unable to reach any other relatives outside Kashmir or in far-away areas, the family went ahead with the burial. “See how much trouble a communication blockade has caused,” Sajad said. “We had to make an announcement from the mosque to let people know that they had to collect for the service.”
Meanwhile, angered at having been kept from Geelani’s funeral and with the imposed restrictions, protestors gathered in various areas in in the city, such as in downtown Srinagar in the Nawa Bazaar area in old Srinagar. Some pelted stones. The security forces fired teargas shells and pellet guns at the protesting civilians. On the evening of 3 September, a teenager sustained pellet injuries across his face and body after security forces opened fire at protestors in downtown Srinagar. He was admitted to the Shri Maharaja Hari Singh Hospital in the city.
A little after midnight on the intervening night of 1 and 2 September, security forces gathered locals at a graveyard in Hyderpora, a few minutes from Geelani’s home, to dig a grave for him. Geelani’s son Naseem said that the police forcefully buried Geelani here, against his final wishes. He said the police broke down the door of Geelani’s home and forced the family to hand over the body. The police later denied forcibly burying him.
Within hours of Geelani’s death, the Indian administration and security forces announced strict restrictions across Kashmir, including the suspension of mobile and internet services.
Security personnel appeared unwilling to let journalists report on the restrictions and clashes in the Valley. While I was covering protests at Srinagar’s Zaldagar bridge area with my colleagues on 3 September, one police official verbally abused us. We met the senior police superintendent of Srinagar, Sandeep Chaudhary, who said, “Bina ijazat koi photo nahi lena”—No one take pictures without permission.
I sent the Srinagar SSP queries about restrictions on the media, the clashes in Srinagar and the use of pellet guns, but he did not respond. The police stated in its evening statements on 2 and 3 September that “no untoward incident” had taken place in Kashmir.
SHAHID TANTRAY is a multimedia reporter at The Caravan. He tweets at @shahidtantray
It sounds so absurd that present-day Muslims are unaware of the power they have to fight against the tyrants: the power of dua, the power of prayer, the power of repentance, the power of being a firm believer and true followers of the Prophet.
Drones fire tear smoke shells on Palestinian protesters
The problem of Palestine constitutes the greatest tragedy for the Muslim world. This is a frozen wound, which has engulfed many lives of innocents for ages in Palestine and Gaza.
Palestine’s Importance
Palestine is a nation, which is held in high esteems in Islamic history and has great significance for Muslims. Some of the major reasons for Palestine being of significance to Muslims are:
Allah has named it the Holy Land and the Blessed Land” in the Quran. It’s mentioned in Surah Al- Ma’idah ( 5:21 ):
“O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back (from fighting in Allah’s cause ) for then you will be returned as losers.”
It was the home of many Prophets and great men. Palestine was the birthplace of many Prophets including Hazrat Ibrahim, Ishaq, Dawud, Yaqub, Sulayman, Zakariya, Yahya, Isa and other companions like Irmiya, Maryam, Samuil, Talut, Uzair and Yusha.
Palestine is home to one of the Sacred Masjidin Islam, the Masjid al-Aqsa. Masjid Al-Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam. It was the first Qibla for Muslims. Many references from religious books have been given with respect to this mosque. As mentioned in Sahih Muslim:
One of the many towers that Israel destroyed by bombardment on fire in Gaza on May 12, 2021
“Isa the son of Maryam (AS) would then descend, and their (the Muslims) commander (Imam Mahdi) would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say, “No, indeed some of you are commanders over each other as Allah’s honour for this Ummah”’. [Muslim]
It is the land where Isa (AS ) will defeat Dajjal, the anti-Christ as its narrated in Mu’adh ibn Jabal:
“The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal(Antichrist) comes forth.
It’s also narrated that Prophet Isa (AS) would then search for him (the Dajjal) until he would catch hold of him at the gate of Ludd (a village near Jerusalem) and would kill him.” [Muslim]
Palestine was the site of the miraculous night journey of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).
It’s clearly mentioned in Surah al-Israa, chapter 17 Verse 1:
“Exalted is He, who took His Servant by night from Masjid Al- Haram to Masjid Al-Aqsa, whose surroundings we have blessed, to show him our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”
Jerusalem
Bani Isreal In The Quran
So many chapters and verses have been revealed in the Quran to enlighten the people about the inhumanity of Israel and its people.
The Jews, the people of Israel are cursed for killing their Prophets and disobeying Allah’s commands. Surah Baqarah [2:87] reads:
“ … But is it not that every time a messenger came to you, O children of Israel, with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant. And a party (of messengers) you denied and another party you killed. ”
Another verse from Surah Al-Ma’idah [5.32] narrates:
“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul of for corruption (done) in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whosoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.”
Allah says in Quran, Surah Al- Ma’idah [5.78]:
“Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue if David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and habitually transgressed.”
Many narrations have been given in context to the people of Israel. One of the verses of Surah An-Naml reads:
“Indeed, This Quran relates to the Children Of Israel most of that over which they disagree.”
The photograph shows the Israeli soldiers in control of the area where Muslims were offer Shab al Qadar prayers on May 8, 2021. The attacks in which more than 200 Palestinians were injured were condemned globally. Pic: Social media
The Ongoing Inhumanity
Nevertheless to mention that the land of Palestine has undergone great turmoil for decades but all the heights of tyranny crossed in the past 11 days. The weapons of Israel ruthlessly killed the innocent Palestinians and their urge to control the holy Masjid Al-Aqsa has slaughtered generations.
ans and their urge to control the holy Masjid Al-Aqsa has slaughtered generations.
The attacks on Palestine by Israel’s armed men are signs of that, a repetition of what happened earlier. The barbaric acts carried out by their forces against the Muslims of Palestine is totally heart wrenching. The false ideologies and their misconceptions on Haikal-e-Sulemaniand Taboot-e-Sakina have blinded their eyes with the lust for power and dominance.
In recent clashes at Masjid Aqsa, nearly 300 people were injured and 36 lost their precious lives in an open fire by Israel’s army at the people. Overall more than 233 people were killed and nearly 1500 injured. The slain includes more than 60 children and a lot of women. Such heights of cruelty and oppression have surpassed all levels of shameful acts. Despite devastating conditions in Palestine, Muslim countries have kept their silence for years and speaking only at the time of oppression stands nowhere in their principles of humanity.
“Sehrai, was a man of principles and commitment. Sehrai was a towering political personality who would be remembered for sacrificing his life for the just cause of Kashmir Sehrai has left this world with the dream of independent and sovereign Kashmir in his eyes”
Throughout his life,“Sehrai Sahib lived by his name.” Originally born as Ashraf Ali in 1944 to the family of Khans—who had migrated to Tikki Pora Lolab from West Province in Pakistan before the Partition—he chose a name Sehrai implying ‘floater’ in a prison in company of Geelani. Since then, he is known to float between prisons and interrogation centres. But as a defiant youth, he first landed in jail in 1965 and continued facing incarcerations. In the sixties itself, Sehrai returned from the prestigious Aligarh Muslim University with BA (Hons) in Urdu—before adding Aadeb-e-Mahir and Aadeb-e-Kamil degrees to his name. He is being credited for launching JeI’s student wing, Shooba-i-Talaba, which was later renamed as Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba.Sehrai had freshly stepped out of the Central Jail Jammu in 1986 when Jama’at fielded him as Muslim United Front (MUF) candidate from Kupwara. Previously, JeI had fielded him against Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah from Ganderbal. Standing against “the lion of Kashmir”—apparently devoid of opposition—was itself a display of Sehrai’s fearless conduct
Apart from then odd campaigning gimmicks of MUF, including dressing their candidates in shrouds, flaunting firearms or invoking djinns to woo voters in their rallies,” says a senior scribe, “it was Sehrai, whose fiery speeches—conveniently mixing religion and politics—were getting noticed in a local press. His oratory skills would simply turn you into his captive audience.”
After 1987 elections were rigged, with most MUF leadership and their polling agents dragged to dungeons, Sehrai assumed the role of a captain whose immediate challenge was to steer clear the ship caught in the political tempest.
As a caretaker of Jama’at’s Batmaloo office, Sehrai would talk less like a romantic and more of a realistic, rubbishing the claims that “rigging prevented massive mandate to MUF”. In case of fair polls, he believed that MUF could’ve emerged as the reckoning opposition with around 20 seats only.
Once left battered in a crackdown by the Farooq Abdullah government, Sehrai strongly resisted the post-1987 poll events in Kashmir. His criticism to Shimla Agreement finally sent him back to jail.
Even among the insurgents of yore, Sehrai commands respect for lifting the prison mood with his scholarly take and authority on Iqbaliyat.
Sehrai was one of the first Jama’at leaders to endorse the armed uprising as a means of struggle against the Indian control in Kashmir, the former rebel says. “And the man did suffer for his unbending conviction.”
With Geelani, he floated TeH in August 2004, following a split in Hurriyat Conference with JeI’s support. While Geelani became its chairman, Sehrai was its Secretary General — until he succeeded 88-year-old rehbar on March 19, 2018.
He was among the other separatist leaders detained during the state-wide lockdown imposed aimed at to revoke special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Later in July 2020, he was arrested from Barzulla Baghat area of Srinagar by the Jammu and Kashmir police under the Public Safety Act and was serving imprisonment in district jail of Udhampur. His health deteriorated on 4 May. He was subsequently admitted to the Government Medical College, Jammu and died on 5 May in the hospital after resulting in failure of oxygen level. His family had submitted three applications to the high court requesting for his medical examination and treatment Government Medical College, Srinagar or Jammu, however his son Raashid alleged that the judge delayed the review of the submitted requests until his health deteriorated in jail week before he died in May.
“Sehrai, was a man of principles and commitment. Sehrai was a towering political personality who would be remembered for sacrificing his life for the just cause of Kashmir Sehrai has left this world with the dream of independent and sovereign Kashmir in his eyes”
Brief Introduction:
Mohammad Ashraf Khan (1944 – 5 May 2021), chiefly known as Ashraf Sehrai or just as Sehrai, was a Kashmir Separatist leader and chairman of Tehreek e Hurriyat, a united political front formed during the Kashmir Conflict. He was elected chairman through a first-ever election conducted in the history of Hurriyat when Syed Ali Shah Geelani relinquished office due to his deteriorating health. He served General Secretary and deputy chairperson of Jamaat e islami Kashmir . He was later appointed its head for political division.
Sehrai was born in 1944 in Tekipora village of Lolab Valley in Kupwara district of Jammu and Kashmir to Shams-ud-din Khan. His ancestors had migrated from areas now part of modern-day Pakistan to Jammu and Kashmir. He also has two elder brothers. One of them is Muhammad Yousuf Khan, one of the founders of Tehreek-e-Islami, who died in 2016.The other is Qamar-ud-din Khan, a renowned member of Jamat-e-Islami in the Lolab area who died in 2009.
As a student, he used to show an interest in religious and political discussions. He also has an interest in poems and literature and also authored writings as well as poems, most of which were published in “Azaan” and “Tulu” magazines. He started publishing Tulu in 1969 from Sopore . Sehrai commissioned articles, took care of its design as well as printing and also wrote for the column called Safa-e-Paksitan which covered the events happening in Pakistan. He and Syed Ali Shah Geelani dedicated a special issue to Allama Iqbal in which they both wrote lengthy columns against Kashmiri socialists and a writer called Ashia Bhat while also defending the magazine and Jamaat e islami, after the magazine’s claim of Iqbal not being a socialist led to a controversy.
He is the father of six children, including four sons and two daughters. His youngest son Junaid Ashraf Khan became a militant in March 2018, joining Hizbul Mujahideen. Another of Sehrai’s sons is named Rashid Ashraf.Two of his other sons are named Khalid and Abid Ashraf.
Sehrai has stated that he never expected Junaid to become a militant, but won’t request him to return.He was particularly instrumental in spreading the Azadi movement beyond the valley into the Muslim belt of Jammu region.Junaid later became Hizbul’s divisional commander, but was killed in an encounter with the CRPF and J&K Police on 19 May 2020. Sehrai personally led his funeral prayers attended by about 300 people despite the Lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic
Sehrai has completed his primary education in his hometown Tekipora and secondary education from Sogam Lolab High School in 1959. After clearing secondary examination, he moved to Alighar Muslim University where he did Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Urdu
He was first arrested on 13 March 1965 for speaking against the arrests by Mir Qasim who had ordered arrests of all those who participated in Sheikh Abdullah’s boycott call against the Indian National Congress in Jammu and Kashmir. He was then subsequently jailed in Central Jail, Srinagar for over twenty months. He was later prisoned by the authorities and spent about 16 years of his life in various jails of India, including in Jammu jail.
Sehrai became an affiliate of Syed Ali Shah Geelani in 1959 after being encouraged to do so by his elder brother. He has stated that he officially became a member as a “rukun” of Jamaat e islami in 1960. Sehrai was jailed for the first time in 1965 over anti-government activities after he delivered a speech criticising GM Sadiq’s government for repression of free speech and arrest of members of the Moh-e-Muqaddas Majlis-e-Amal. After he started focusing on the Tulu magazine, JeI cadres complained about him staying away from the organization’s activities and the magazine was thus shut down in 1971.
After the JeI expelled Geelani following the formation of his own Hurriyat conference party due to opposition to a dialogue with the central Indian government, Sehrai also left the group and was appointed as Tehreek e Hurriyat’s general secretary in 2004 during its foundation. Following the 2016-17 Kashmir unrest, NIA published a report to address his involvement in issuing protest calanders and carrying out anti-India activities.
He was appointed as the acting chairman by Tehreek-e-Hurriyat’s Majlis-e-Shoora on 19 March 2018.Later, he was elected as the chairman for 3 years on 19 August by a margin of 410 votes out of a total of 433, in the first-ever Hurriyat election since Geelani stepped down.
He was among the other separatist leaders detained during the state-wide lockdown imposed aimed at to revoke special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Later in July 2020, he was arrested from Barzulla Baghat area of Srinagar by the Jammu and Kashmir police under the Public Safety Act and was serving imprisonment in district jail of Udhampur. His health deteriorated on 4 May. He was subsequently admitted to the Government Medical College, Jammu and died on 5 May in the hospital after resulting in failure of oxygen level. His family had submitted three applications to the high court requesting for his medical examination and treatment Government Medical College, Srinagar or Jammu, however his son Raashid alleged that the judge delayed the review of the submitted requests until his health deteriorated in jail week before he died in May.
Sehrai’s family alleges that he was “murdered” by the authorities, while Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association alleges his death a “Custodial Murder”.
“The Jammu and Kashmir Prisons Department, according to The Wire wrote a letter to the Department of Home seeking for available resources in the jail for Sehrai’s health condition, however jail officials didn’t receive any reply to the submitted letter from the home department.”
“Oppression does not last,’ my grandfather – now 91 and in ailing health – tells me as police line the roads outside.”
@RuwaShah
Syed Ali Shah Geelani, one of the most prominent figures in the Kashmiri resistance movement, has been under house arrest in Indian-administered Kashmir for years [Photo courtesy of Ruwa Shah]
It was a frosty February afternoon in the Turkish city of Kayseri. I had just finished my exams, and was hoping to have a rare moment of respite after submitting all my assignments. But before I could heave a sigh of relief and relax, I got a text: “Just heard about your grandfather. I am so sorry.” My grandfather, my “Aba”, is Syed Ali Shah Geelani, one of the most prominent figures in the Kashmiri resistance movement and the leader of Tehreek-e-Hurriyat. He is 91 years old, and his health is ailing.
I have been away from home, studying towards a masters degree in Turkey, since 2018. Due to the restrictions the central government regularly puts on local communications in Indian-administered Kashmir, I often spend days without talking to my family and getting updates about the health of my grandfather. So that text terrified me.
When I finally managed to get my mother on the phone and ask her about my Aba, she confirmed that his condition was worsening and told me that he wants to be surrounded by family.
At that very moment, I decided to return home.
“So far the cellphones are working. But we do not know when they (the state) will shut it, if anything happens to Geelani,” I overheard a woman say as I made my way towards the next plane to Kashmir at the Delhi airport. Clearly, the rumours about my grandfather’s health were spreading rapidly across the community. When I landed in Srinagar a few hours later, my heart was racing – I had not been home for over 17 months and I was eager to see my family, and especially my “Aba”, as soon as possible.
The writer and her grandfather, Syed Ali Geelani [Photo courtesy of Ruwa Shah
The weather was very cold in Srinagar, too. But unlike Turkey, everything looked colourless and dusty – like a scene from a dystopian movie. My brother, Anees, was waiting for me at the airport. We quickly got in his car and started driving towards Aba’s house in Hyderpora. The roads leading to his house were lined up with armoured vehicles and I saw men setting up CCTV cameras on electricity poles near his house. Authorities were clearly getting ready for my grandfather’s passing, and the unrest they expect his funeral to cause.
A police vehicle was blocking the entrance of the house, but this did not surprise me. That police vehicle has been a permanent fixture at Aba’s gate since he was put under house arrest for the first time in 2008
Aba has barely left his home in the past decade. The Indian authorities allowed him to make a few public appearances in 2014, but since then, he only stepped beyond that police vehicle at his gate a couple of times to visit the hospital.
Aba suffers from several medical conditions. He developed renal cancer in a jail in the Indian city of Ranchi in 2003. He had one of his kidneys removed as a result. He has a pacemaker in his heart. He suffers from an acute chest infection that makes it difficult for him to breathe. On the day of my visit, the infection was so bad, Aba was on oxygen support.
I saw Ame, my mother, first as I entered the house. Most of my cousins, aunts and uncles were also there, and everyone was talking in hushed voices.
I wanted to see Aba right away, but there was a team of doctors in his room. Usually, women do not enter Aba’s room when he has male guests there who are not from our immediate family. So I sat near Ame and waited for the doctors to leave.
After almost an hour, I walked inside Aba’s room. He was surrounded by his daughters, his sons, his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
The man who once roared like a lion and inspired thousands was now struggling to comprehend the most mundane things going on around him. He could not even recognise the faces of his own family members
Syed Ali Shah Geelani shouts slogans at a rally in Srinagar on April 10, 2009 [File:Danish Ismail/Reuters
Aba’s health deteriorated rapidly after August 5, 2019 – the day the Indian government scrapped Kashmir’s partial autonomy. He fell into a deep depression, and for good reason – since that day, almost all members of his party are behind bars. He is sad and lonely.
I walked towards Aba. He was barely visible under a pile of blankets. I reached out and held his hand. It felt like a skeleton with his skin hanging loose.
He did not immediately recognise me. I told him I was his granddaughter. “Which one?” he asked. “Are you the one who used to bring me gifts? You went to Turkey, didn’t you?” he said softly.
It made me smile. I was still in his remaining memories.
We managed to speak a little bit that day.
It was heartbreaking to see Aba struggle to speak, to remember things, but even in this condition, he surprised us.
He asked me if I had seen my father, Altaf Ahmad Shah, who along with many other leaders from my grandfather’s party, is imprisoned in New Delhi since 2017. “You should meet the prisoners. Tell them that I pray for them and their sacrifice will not be wasted,” he told me. My father worked with Aba for more than 35 years. He was a student activist when he joined the resistance movement. Aba was so impressed with my father that he eventually arranged for him to marry his daughter, my mother, and become part of his family.
“Do not stop me here. It is time I go,” he said in a hushed voice when we once again gathered around him. “You should not be selfish. I am in pain.” And then he closed his eyes and started reciting verses from the Holy Quran. As he was humming “La Ilaha illhala…” he suddenly stopped, raised his hand, and feebly shouted “Allah-u-Akbar!”
Aba dedicated his life to Islam and Kashmir’s freedom struggle. For him, the two have always been inseparable. This is why, even when he barely had the energy to breathe, he was either reciting from the Quran or talking about Kashmir. “Do not give up on freedom. Zulm chu ne poshaan! Oppression does not last!” Aba kept repeating as I spoon-fed him. He kept reciting it to himself, as if he was trying to etch those words to his memory so that he would not forget what he had stood for all his life.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani speaks at a press conference in Srinagar on January 3, 2004 [File:Rafiq Maqbool/AP
By the end of my first day at Aba’s house, his condition was getting slightly better.
He was, after all, receiving very good care. A team of doctors sent by the authorities was visiting Aba on a daily basis. The Indian authorities are not normally known for their compassion and care for members of the Kashmiri resistance. However, after their move to revoke Kashmir’s partial autonomy, and the unrest that followed, they are careful to prevent any episode that could trigger a mass gathering. And they know my grandfather’s passing would cause many Kashmiris to take to the streets.
That evening, I went to my parents’ house to spend the night. When I returned to my grandfather’s house the next morning, I saw that the security outside the gate has been beefed up. Now, only close family members were allowed to enter, and people in the house were banned from using their phones. Fearing that I may not be able to return if I ventured out, I decided not to leave the house until things calmed down. That evening, two of the three people working in Aba’s house were also removed by the police. All this was because a video of Aba, depicting his deteriorating state of health, was posted on social media. The video had gone viral, triggering panic among the people and alarming the authorities.
The rumours that my grandfather is on his deathbed reached such levels that day that government officials inquired about my family’s plans for Aba’s burial and last rites. “They will not let us do anything in case anything happens. They want to handle all of it,” my elder uncle, Naim Geelani, said.
Aba wishes to be buried in the Martyr’s Graveyard in Eidgah, Srinagar. How his burial is handled is important for us, because he is the head of our family. It is important for the state, because his death can lead to an outburst of anger. But most importantly, it is important for the Kashmiri people, because they love him, respect him and look up to him.
Between all the discussions about the funeral, the fear of the unknown, and the acute sadness of knowing Aba is unlikely to get better, the health of my uncle, who has a heart condition, started to deteriorate. Just like his brother and my cousins, he was not only trying to come to terms with the looming demise of the head of our household, but also mentally preparing to get arrested. The number of officers outside was constantly increasing, and we all knew any one of us could be taken into custody at any second. We felt practically jailed in our grandfather’s house.
Somehow, I managed to send a message to a few journalists and tell them we had been locked in – it made me feel a bit better to know that people outside, people who know my grandfather, are aware of our plight.
To cope with the tension, we all stayed up, watched some old videos, laughed and talked about how our lives have been shaped by politics.
Aba’s situation improved the next day, and the siege was relaxed. But he was clearly still in pain. As he laid restlessly, his eyes remained open and moved repeatedly from side to side.
Not sure what to do or how to help, we took turns sitting by his bed.
Throughout my life, I only had the opportunity to be alone with Aba a few times. But during these few days in February, I spent more time with him alone than any other member of our family.
I jumped at every opportunity to be in his room because I knew that our time together was limited, and I wanted to talk to him as much as I could while he is still with us. He has always been an important force in my life. A few years ago, in 2013, my parents refused to let me study journalism. It was Aba who finally convinced my father to allow me to follow my passion. Aba is much more progressive than anyone who only knows him as an orthodox leader would assume.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani addresses a protest in Srinagar on August 3, 2007 [File:Adnan Abidi/Reuters]
Once he specifically asked for me, and I was overjoyed. I sat by his side for several hours and I keenly listened to him as he tried to speak in bits and pieces.
“Your father was very young and energetic when I saw him for the first time … He was sharp because he was from the old city (in Srinagar),” he said.
Before the house in Hyderpora, Aba lived in Dooru, Sopore, a village in north Kashmir. “It was your father who asked me to move to Srinagar … He always gave good advice,” Aba added after a long pause. “Give him my Salaam when you see him … Do see him before you go back.”
My father is Aba’s only son-in-law, among five others, who is an active part of the freedom struggle. In one of his letters to me from the prison, my father told me how Aba’s character and dedication to the freedom struggle drove him to work with him.
As Aba continued to talk fondly of his memories with my father, I thought of the times Aba, my father and I had spent in that very room across the years. When I was younger, I spent many hours watching Aba read, write, pray, exercise and passionately talk to my father and his other colleagues about Kashmir in that room.
Every move Aba made, every word he uttered was indicative of his strong and disciplined character. In spite of all his illnesses, he followed a strict schedule until the very end. He woke up before morning prayers and exercised for an hour. He also had a very limited diet, and never indulged in “fancy” food. He would have one yolk-less egg in the morning with a glass of milk. For lunch, one piece of chicken, a small bowl of soup without spices, and a small portion of rice. And for dinner, a single piece of flatbread with some vegetables. This was his routine for years.
As I tried to spoon-feed him fluids, I thought of all this, and broke down in tears.
All my life, I thought of him as someone unbreakable – the epitome of strength and conviction in the face of difficulty and strife. But now, he was crumbling.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who has spent a life time fighting for Kashmir, and stood tall in the face of endless persecution and abuse, is now fighting physical pain. And, for the first time in his life, he knows he is in a battle he has no way of winning.
I spent three unforgettable days with my grandfather in Kashmir before returning to Turkey. On my way back, as Aba wished, I spent a day in New Delhi and visited my father in the Tihar jail. Now, I am back in Turkey and I do not know when I will get to see my grandfather again.
I am trying to live my life and follow my dreams, because I know that is what Aba would have wanted for me. But I still tremble when I receive a text at an unexpected time, fearing it could be from someone informing me that Aba is no longer with us.
I, of course, know Aba is never really going to leave us. Even when he is no longer physically with us, his devotion to Kashmir and the suffering he endured for our freedom will be remembered and honoured by generations of Kashmiris to come.
I cannot help but think how similar Aba’s life has been to the Kashmiri freedom struggle itself – an honourable journey full of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, a battered dream hoping to come true. So, it is no surprise that even today, when he cannot remember much, he remembers Kashmir and the longing its people have for freedom – a dream that he knows will be realised one day.
![Syed Ali Shah Geelani, one of the most prominent figures in the Kashmiri resistance movement, has been under house arrest in Indian-administered Kashmir for years [Photo courtesy of Ruwa Shah]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ruwa-shah.jpg?resize=770%2C513)
Inside The Valley 