In the first Manvantra, when the nine great Vedic Rishis came and settled in Kashmir, they made up the first population of Kashmir. Among these sages was the ever-famous Kashyapa. The connections between Kashyapa and the formation of Kashmir being thoroughly established by the ecclesiastics.
Kashmir was etymologically tied to Kashyapa. Effectively, the nine great Vedic Rishis being the first inhabitants (aborigines) of Kashmir became a part of the common man’s collective memory and that of a writer’s pen. Considering that no ethnographic research has been conducted to locate the aborigines, the reservations for aborigine status become significantly easier. In this academic maelstrom, however, historians tasked with clearing the chaos put forth a mosaic of alternate opinions.
That the Human emerged out of Africa is in accordance with the historians. It is from here, the humans spread to the rest of the world. Discoveries assert that around 2 million years ago, primitive human had reached Kashmir. In 1969, H. D. Sankalia discovered a hand axe (earliest in the entire Asian continent) at Lidder valley in Pahalgam.
This hand axe dates to the climactic period when Kashmir was habitable for human settlement. Further excavations revealed more palaeolithic tools, establishing the fact that during Palaeolithic times, Kashmir was home to some. What do we call these people? Aborigines? Unless we do not know what the weltanschauungs of these people were, we will have to hold off. For now, let us refer to them as ‘Batch 1’.
More evidence on migration was acquired by Ajaz Banday when he discovered rock carvings at Bommai. These carvings portrayed a chase and game scene. Scholars opine that the artists of these carvings were not natives of Kashmir. They came from areas like Chilas, Swat, Punjab etcetera. Even here they did not constitute of a homogeneous character but were an agglomeration of people of diverse background. Given that these people assembled in Kashmir, do we call them the aborigines? For now, let us refer to them as ‘Batch 2’. But what happens if these people decide to move out of Kashmir? Then, what occurs?
A dramatic transformation in Kashmir’s climate occurred some 9000 years ago. Bitter cold along with frequent rains rendered habitation unfeasible. People as well as animals perished. As a result, people decided to migrate out of Kashmir. It took a considerable amount of time—roughly four millennia—for the environment to improve and for the residents of the borderlands to begin returning. Thus, we witness the slow onset of the Neolithic era. Do we refer to these new settlers as the aborigines? For now, let us refer to them as ‘Batch 3’.
Understanding the shared commonalities between these early settlers and other neolithic civilizations of the world are crucial to understanding the origins of the former. These early settlers settled in Kanispur, moving progressively towards Burzohom and finally to Gufkral. Clearly these people had some understanding of life after death, as ascertained by the evidence of grave goods in Burzohom. This practice of burying the dead along with grave goods only kept on getting more prominent with time.
These people also started establishing contacts with the Harrapans. The divine one horned horse, a prominent feature of the Harrapans, also found retainers in Burzohom. Their dwelling pits had characteristics similar to those found in Russia, China, and West Asia. Their custom of painting the skeleton in red was similar to the customs evidenced across Russia, Japan, China etcetera.
That these people were not indigenous to Kashmir could be ascertained by the similarities they bore with the neighbouring areas. Furthermore, a sudden appearance of these cultures in Neolithic Kashmir, rather than a gradual growth, strengthens this argument.
To the later years of the same period, we associate the emergence of the fantastic Nagas (serpentine mythical creatures, revered as gods). Even though there is absolutely no evidence of Naga cult in Neolithic Kashmir, the Naga worship was a prominent characteristic of the regions surrounding Kashmir. It is thus presumed that this new faith would have made pertinent encroachments into Kashmir as well.
From this point onward, Nilmatpurana acknowledges the history of Kashmir and appropriates Nagas with the first inhabitants of Kashmir. Factually though, the Nagas lagged the archaeologically attested earliest inhabitants by few million years.
Around 3700 years ago, came the mighty Aryans. Although there is little archaeological proof of Aryan immigration in Kashmir, it is nevertheless indispensable. The Aryans came to Kashmir from Central Asia via Swat. In Kashmir they encountered a faith that venerated the Nagas. Nevertheless, Nilmatpurana also mentions another tribe; the Pishachas.
The name ‘Pisacha’ has varied connotations. In ancient Sanskrit literature ‘Paisaci’ was a derogatory name given to the Dardic languages. This could be further ascertained by Nilamatpurana pejoratively calling these people the ‘flesh eaters’. The Aryans and these early settlers do not seem to have much in common in terms of language or culture.
Consequently, the blending of contrasting ideas gave birth to a unique faith. It was now irremissible for the Aryans to worship the 603 distinct Nagas of Kashmir. They also had to revere the Pishacha chief, “Nikumbha”. Would these individuals—the Aryans and the early settlers alike—be regarded as aboriginals? For now, let us refer to them as ‘Batch 4’.
With the dissemination of Buddhism in Kashmir, monasteries and stupas appeared across the canvass of Kashmir. As a result, the religious as well as the cultural composition of Kashmir changed further.
The Mauryas, Utpalas, Loharas, Shah Mirs, Chaks, Mughals, Durranis, Sikhs, Dogras, and so on further contributed to the mingling of cultures. Their courts were adorned by the people who were not the natives of Kashmir, let alone aboriginals. Some of these people came with elaborate entourages and never left back. For now, let us cluster them all into ‘Batch 5’.
Keeping in sight all these migrations, who in the ‘present day’ Kashmir may legitimately assert their ‘historical’ Aboriginal status? If religion is the determinant, the absorption of religious ideas of Nagas and Pishachas into that of Aryans and even the modern-day Pandits and Muslims makes them all the same stock. The reverence for the springs (nag), meditative practices of Pandits and Sufis, mutual reverence for the saints are few among many of such mutuality.
If language is the determinant, the base of the Koshur language is Dardic. The Aryans did learn Koshur but also imposed their own language. The imposition of an alternate language by a new authority is a norm in Kashmir’s history. As a result, the language of the early inhabitants has been replaced by a synthesis of several languages, including Greek, Sanskrit, Persian, Urdu, Hindi, Arabic, and, increasingly, English. With the version of Koshur spoken by the people now, it makes them all the same stock.
In the event that caste is the determinant, it needs to be recalled that with changing times many people changed their krams. People came to be known by their professions, associations, titles, place of origin, monikers etcetera. How would we then establish a connection between the castes of the present and aboriginality whose headwaters are in the past?
Will our shared physical characteristics facilitate this connection? The physiognomy of Kashmiris is like those of its neighbouring areas like Afghanistan, Punjab, Gilgit etcetera. Would they be equally entitled to make the aborigine claim? What about the ones who even try to establish a connection with the lost tribe of Israel. Will they be equal claimants? Who gets to call itself an aborigine of Kashmir? Which migratory batch are they deriving their ancestry from? Most importantly, what characteristics will distinguish them?
We are barking up the wrong tree, it seems. The aborigines, that need to be traced in the past are not to be manufactured in the present. Such attempts would just throw a spanner in social cohesion with everyone contesting for the aboriginal status for itself. This would further lead to the division of the society along the lines that have not even been identified yet.
Perhaps if we instead stuck to our cultural roots, we might be able to save what little is left of the aborigines. All this, while keeping in mind a future. Jeopardising the future by reminiscing in the past is never a good bargain.
Kashmir warrants efforts that are collective, irrespective of the differences that are of the fringes. There is remarkably high possibility that we might actually be able to do it. After-all, we are all the same stock.
Moin S. Hakak PhD Research Scholar, Department of International Studies, Political Science and History, Christ University, Bangalore.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
