It was a bitterly cold December night in 1963. The entire Kashmir Valley lay wrapped in a thick white blanket of snow. A deep, eerie silence had hung in the air past 10 years — until an incident shattered it, not just breaking the stillness but also upending Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s long-held beliefs about the Kashmiri people.
The theft of the sacred relic from the Hazratbal shrine was a political earthquake that melted the frozen political landscape of Kashmir. This was a storm that swept across the region, shaking the very foundations of New Delhi’s control over the Valley.
The disappearance of the relic in December 1963 tore apart the carefully maintained façade of calm in Kashmir. Nehru, who had long perceived Kashmiris as docile and politically apathetic, suddenly found himself confronted by a mass movement that directly challenged India's authority.
Historian and former bureaucrat Khalid Bashir Ahmad meticulously documents this uprising in his book Kashmir – Shock, Rage, Upheaval: The Theft of the Prophet’s Relic, the Unrest, and Its Aftermath.
According to him, this was the first major rebellion of its kind since 1953, when Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was dismissed from his position as the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.
This dramatic event was not just an emotional outburst — it triggered a chain reaction that altered Nehru’s perception of Kashmiris forever. For the first time, the possibility of real progress towards resolving the Kashmir issue seemed within reach.
As a direct consequence of the uprising, Sheikh Abdullah visited Pakistan, and President Ayub Khan promised to travel to Delhi in June 1964, signalling a willingness to engage in talks over Kashmir.
However, Nehru’s sudden death dashed these hopes, and within a year, the situation escalated into the 1965 war. Despite the event having cascading effects of such magnitude, no formal investigation into the relic’s theft has been conducted so far, leaving the incident shrouded in mystery.
Back in 1952, Nehru had resolved to permanently settle the Kashmir dispute by securing the state’s accession to India through its newly formed Constituent Assembly. When concerns were raised about potential Kashmiri opposition to this move, Nehru shared his rather dismissive opinion of the Kashmiri people:
"One must not forget that the people of the Kashmir Valley and its surroundings, despite their great intelligence and artistic skills, do not possess much masculine strength."
He further elaborated:
"They are gentle and accustomed to a simple way of life… The common man is primarily interested in only a few things — honest governance and cheap, abundant food. If he gets these, he remains mostly content."
This belief became the cornerstone of India’s Kashmir policy in the years that followed. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, who was appointed Jammu and Kashmir’s Prime Minister after Sheikh Abdullah’s dismissal in 1953, ruled for the next decade through a mix of patronage and repression.
However, the mass uprising of 1963–64 completely debunked the assumption that Kashmiris were politically indifferent.
For 10 years, Bakshi had maintained an illusion of stability by balancing coercion with economic incentives. During this period, the Plebiscite Front’s movement had stagnated. But the public outrage over the Hazratbal relic’s theft reignited political fervour, uniting disparate factions — the Plebiscite Front, Jamaat-e-Islami, the Political Conference, and the Jamiat-e-Hamdaniya — all under a single umbrella: The Action Committee.
The theft of the relic was an audacious act. The thief knew exactly where it was kept and managed to enter the Hujra-e-Khas (the inner sanctum) with such precision that nothing else was disturbed. This was not just an attack on religious sentiments but a direct blow to the collective consciousness of Kashmiri Muslims.
Investigations found no signs of an accidental burglary — no jewellery or valuable items were stolen. The suspicion extended to the shrine’s caretakers and political circles, but no concrete evidence ever surfaced. Thus, a new and explosive chapter in Kashmir’s history began.
The movement triggered by the relic’s theft forced Nehru to completely rethink his perception of Kashmiris. This marked a pivotal moment in the Valley’s modern political journey, compelling New Delhi’s leadership to reassess its strategy.
The unrest was not merely about reclaiming a sacred relic — it was an uprising against a broader system of repression. Protesters were not just demanding the return of a holy object; they were challenging the very legitimacy of India’s rule over Kashmir.
The Action Committee was an informal alliance of various groups, including the Plebiscite Front, the Political Conference, the Jamiat-e-Hamdaniya, and Jamaat-e-Islami. Remarkably, for the first time since the 1930s, both supporters and opponents of Sheikh Abdullah found themselves on the same platform.
At the time, Srinagar’s Mirwaiz, Maulvi Yusuf Shah, had migrated to Pakistan, leaving the young Maulvi Mohammad Farooq to assume leadership of the Action Committee, with Maulvi Abbas Ansari as its spokesperson.
This movement marked the beginning of a new chapter in Kashmir’s political history. Both Mirwaiz Farooq and — Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s eldest son, Farooq Abdullah emerged in public life.
Have you liked the news article?