I just see too many problems from historical records against the claim that it was economic-exploitation of "Kashmiri Muslims" by Gulab Singh's dynasty & "hindus" that led to "socialist/non-communal/pure-independence" movement. The history simply doesnt show it. Let see briefly:
Historical records r very clear on the economic conditions worsening throughout Mughal occupation, with both foreign travelers and domestic sources confirming the general decline of agrarian economy& ruinous exploitation of peasants as part of wider Mughal rule in India.
Abul Fazl indicates that even though formally 1/3 (of produce) was the ancient tax, it had risen to 2/3 or more in the late sultanate/early mughal phase - "reduced" to 1/2. But on ground other evidence of the 2/3 or even more, to revenue demand in excess of production exists.
Hindus wr special targets, not just for revenue - but also women. Mughal governor Iftiqar Khan (1671-75) had a pastime of "lifting" pretty Panditani girls and gifting them as slaves to Muslim favourites/killed/"converted" Hindus. Hindus went to plead ag him with Guru Teg Bahadur
interestingly, the shia and sunni faction frequently clashed, often setting fire to entire localities in Srinagar-with records of up to 15,000 houses being burned. There wr also murderous fights between Sunni mullas over dominance/right to mosques etc.
in these riotings, associated masscares/arson - Hindu names are not reported. just various factions of Muslims. Only one of the long list of subahdars in Mughal lists was "Kashmiri" muslim, rest were "Irani" or "Turani". Some Hindu names appear in various record keeping role.
but for most part, it doesnt appear that Hindus had any great share of admin or landed wealth. Islamic admin, took care to fill up lucrative/higher positions with Muslims, and systematically not just discriminated but also targeted the Hindu women for abduction/enslavement.
Afghan rule that followed was an uninterrupted horror story. Gwasha Lal Koul, in his "history of Kashmir" writes that a common Muslim taunt to Hindus was "Butta chuk to khosa dita"(u r a Pundit & I will mount u). Given Afghan baccha-bazi, imagine what happened to Hindu boys.
but given our economic context, the sheer amounts extorted by Afghan rule shd show who exploited whom: average 2 million rupees, with one Abdullah Khan having extorted a personal fortune of 1 crore in just 6 months.
Dr Sufi's confirms in "Kashir" (Kashmir-a history), that Mughals& Afghans prevented Kashmiris from mil employment, and esp treated "brahmins", shias, bamhas badly: " sar Buredan pesh in sangreen dilan gul chidan ast" (headchop on crime of tearing a flower).
when Gulab Singh gained the territory, he was faced with the fibre spitted out after 400 years of Muslim sacking and looting of the whole area. But Nicholson writes of merchants while complaining of heavy tax on both Kabul& Kashmir, admired the protection on Gulab Singh's side.
Gulab Singhs life was mostly spent on conquest and reorg of his territories while Ranbir Singh seems to have started the socio-economic reforms in earnest. This is first time "begar" (forced labour) became mandatorily payable as fixed by king. He canceled many of the older taxes.
these taxes canceled, reduced the revenue claim from more than 75% to less than 50%. In the first year of reforms, the trade increased by 125% with Sialkot, 200% with Jalandhar& Hoshiarpur. were all high positions occupied by Hindus? the Panchayat court had 4 Muslims 4 Hindus.
Ranbir Singh appears to hv revived and patronized a whole host of industries, like silk, paper, tea. Started irrigation, flood-control, and laid out new roads. Established a full fledged law code, even introducing early forms of state rationing to cope with famine situations.
but overall, the bulk of remaining Hindus in Kashmir, majority having either migrated out or "converted" if not raped/sold as slaves or killed for pleasures of previous muslim regimes -still remained same sorry peasants as muslims.
what is indeed puzzling in the scant data, is the growth in population, esp urban ones, while food production fell, or remained stagnant and the kings had to increasingly organize net import of food. In a way it seems the reforms eased the earlier extortion or provided relief
by increasing state redistribution measures, which sustained increasing urban popn, without providing or failing to incentivize non-governmental employment generation. Its also possible that a section of urban Muslims had grown used to state patronage under Muslim rule.
its been already noted throughout the decline of Mughal rule & growth of Brit colonial rule, that the Muslim professional admin classes criticized regimes purely on basis of whether their claimed hereditary sole right to admin jobs was being respected or not.
looking at the economy of Kashmir, from its ruinous socioeconomic and pol policies under Islamic rule - to the reformist Dogra rule, the lot of common Hindu seems to hv been as tough as Muslims - yet Abdullah or his cohort made it at start and end -a Hindu exploitation of Muslim
while for a brief interlude they did don the mask of including the "hindu", it seems mostly a tactical one to retain image advantages in a wider audience. Since the Islamic theme seems never to hv really been abandoned as proved towards end of Abdullahs life.
The ideology and funding of wider Indian Islamist circles, also played a crucial role in shaping the Islamist separatism of Kashmir. From Ahmedyas to Shias to AMU to Deoband - all played a role as did the Brits. But thats another story and not the economic excuse one.
