Words Matter: What Kashmir’s Clothing History Tells Us About Poverty, Dignity and Political Memory

Peerzada Masarat Shah

Contents

Words Matter: What Kashmir’s Clothing History Tells Us About Poverty, Dignity and Political Memory Poverty Was Real, But So Was Dignity From Be-Yezaar to Ba-Yezaar Clothing Cannot Be the Measure of a People The Politics of Memory We Must Not Shame Our Ancestors Words Matter More When Spoken by Leaders The Real Inqilaab Kashmir Needs History, Not Historical Humiliation Imdad Saqi Clothing Is Not a Measure of Civilisation History Must Be Read in Its Context Poverty Was Not a Cultural Defect Progress Has Many Authors The Politics of Outrage Kashmir Deserves a More Serious Conversation Shalware-e-Inqilaab: Beyond the Politics of Distraction By Dr Rizwan Rumi When Clothing Becomes a Political Argument History Must Be Read in Its Context Dr Rizwan Rumi’s Perspective: Dignity Is Not a Dress Code The Politics of Distraction Progress Has Many Authors The Responsibility of Public Representatives Kashmir Deserves a More Serious Conversation

Recent remarks by National Conference leader Tanvir Sadiq concerning the historical clothing of Kashmiris have generated considerable discussion. At the heart of the controversy is not merely a piece of clothing, but the larger question of how Kashmir’s past is remembered, narrated and politically interpreted.

Whatever historical point Sadiq intended to make, the controversy offers an opportunity to look beyond political reactions and examine an important aspect of Kashmir’s social history: the relationship between clothing, poverty, dignity and economic transformation.

History should neither be romanticised nor weaponised. It should be discussed with accuracy, context and sensitivity.

Kashmir’s traditional clothing was shaped by its harsh climate, local materials, social customs, occupation and economic circumstances. The pheran, yezaar, kameez and other traditional garments were not simply articles of clothing. They were part of everyday Kashmiri life and, in many ways, remain symbols of the region’s cultural identity.

At the same time, poverty was undeniably a reality for large sections of the population, particularly in rural Kashmir. But poverty should never be confused with a lack of dignity.

A poor man wearing one garment for years was not necessarily a man without self-respect. A family unable to afford several sets of clothes was still a family with traditions, honour, relationships and aspirations.

That distinction is important.

Poverty Was Real, But So Was Dignity

The social and economic history of pre-1947 Kashmir cannot be understood without acknowledging the agrarian structure of the time. Large sections of the rural population were dependent on agriculture and existed within systems of tenancy, revenue extraction and intermediary landholding.

The later land reforms were, therefore, not merely administrative changes. They represented a profound transformation in the relationship between the cultivator and the land.

The Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act of 1950 explicitly sought to abolish large landed estates and transfer ownership to actual tillers. The legislation itself stated that its objective was to remove intermediaries between the tiller and the State and transfer land to those actually cultivating it.

The significance of this reform should not be underestimated.

It altered the economic position of thousands of cultivators and became one of the defining features of post-1947 Kashmir’s socio-economic transformation. The Supreme Court later noted the sequence of tenancy and land-reform measures undertaken in Jammu and Kashmir, including the 1950 Big Landed Estates Abolition Act and subsequent agrarian reforms.

Therefore, if clothing is being used as a metaphor for economic transformation, the broader historical argument has substance.

But the metaphor must be handled carefully.

From Be-Yezaar to Ba-Yezaar

The expressions Be-Yezaar and Ba-Yezaar, when used in contemporary political discussion, are evocative descriptions of a supposed journey from deprivation to greater economic security.

Yet we should be cautious about presenting “Shalware-e-Inqilaab” as an established historical slogan of the National Conference or Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah without a primary historical source demonstrating precisely when and how the phrase was used.

That distinction matters.

The documented political history gives us something much more substantial to work with: the Naya Kashmir programme of the National Conference, adopted in 1944, envisioned sweeping political, economic and social transformation. It was not simply a political manifesto; it contained a broader programme for restructuring the State and improving the socio-economic condition of its people.

The land reforms that followed after 1947 reflected important elements of that broader political vision. Contemporary historical analyses describe Naya Kashmir as advancing principles such as the abolition of intermediaries and “land to the tiller.”

Thus, the real story is considerably bigger than a pair of trousers.

It is the story of a society moving from one economic order to another.

Clothing Cannot Be the Measure of a People

There is another danger in this debate.

When historical poverty is described carelessly, people who lived through that period—or whose parents and grandparents did—can feel that their lives are being reduced to a joke.

Clothing can tell us something about economic circumstances. It cannot tell us everything about a person’s dignity.

Kashmir’s traditional yezaar itself has a long cultural history. Historical references to Kashmiri dress describe the pheran, kameez and yezaar as components of traditional attire.

Even Kashmiri literature preserved the garment as part of everyday cultural life. The celebrated writer Akhtar Mohiuddin, for example, used yezaar in the titles and imagery of his literary works, reflecting how deeply ordinary clothing was embedded in Kashmiri social life.

This is why the political language surrounding clothing deserves sensitivity.

A garment can represent poverty in one historical context and cultural pride in another.

The same pheran that may once have been associated with economic limitation can today be worn proudly by a Kashmiri in Srinagar, Delhi, London or New York as a marker of identity.

History changes the meaning of objects.

The Politics of Memory

Political parties naturally interpret history through their ideological traditions. The National Conference has a particularly strong historical association with the political transformation of Kashmir, the Naya Kashmir vision and post-1947 land reforms.

But political memory can become problematic when complex history is reduced to slogans.

The transformation of Kashmir’s peasantry cannot be explained simply by saying that people moved from being Be-Yezaar to Ba-Yezaar. Economic emancipation involved land ownership, tenancy rights, education, healthcare, political participation, employment, infrastructure and changes in social relations.

Land reform was one part of a much larger transformation.

The 1950 legislation itself demonstrates the scale of the change: ownership rights of certain proprietors were extinguished and transferred to tillers, subject to provisions and exemptions contained in the law.

That is a serious historical achievement to discuss.

It does not require ridicule of the people who lived before it.

We Must Not Shame Our Ancestors

There is an uncomfortable tendency in modern political discourse to look at earlier generations through the lens of today’s prosperity.

That is unfair.

Our grandparents may have owned fewer clothes, travelled less, possessed fewer household goods and lived in smaller homes. But they also preserved language, folklore, craftsmanship, hospitality, religious traditions, family structures and a distinctive cultural identity under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

They were not lesser Kashmiris because they were poorer Kashmiris.

In fact, their ability to preserve Kashmiri society through difficult economic and political circumstances is itself part of our heritage.

We should therefore be able to say two things at the same time:

Kashmir experienced deep poverty and socio-economic inequality.

And Kashmiris living through that poverty were never without dignity.

Both statements can be historically true.

Words Matter More When Spoken by Leaders

This is where the controversy surrounding Tanvir Sadiq becomes relevant.

A private historian, researcher or elderly Kashmiri recalling the past may use colourful expressions while narrating memories. Political leaders, however, operate under a different responsibility.

Their words are amplified by television, social media and political opponents. A phrase intended as historical symbolism can quickly become a statement interpreted as an insult to an entire generation.

Public representatives therefore need to be particularly careful when speaking about poverty, caste, class, clothing, religion, community or historical deprivation.

The objective should be to educate society—not embarrass it.

If the intended argument was that economic reforms transformed the lives of ordinary Kashmiris, that argument can and should be made through evidence.

The history of land reform itself is powerful enough.

There is no need to make ordinary Kashmiris the punchline.

The Real Inqilaab

Perhaps the most meaningful way to understand the idea of a Shalware-e-Inqilaab is not literally through the presence or absence of a garment, but through what clothing may symbolise.

The real revolution was the possibility of an ordinary cultivator acquiring greater economic security.

It was the weakening of old intermediary structures.

It was the expansion of education.

It was the emergence of new political consciousness.

It was the movement from subjecthood towards citizenship.

It was the aspiration that a peasant’s child could become a teacher, doctor, civil servant, writer or political representative.

That is a much more profound inqilaab than simply wearing trousers.

And if clothing is to remain the metaphor, then the metaphor should be about dignity gained through empowerment—not dignity supposedly absent from those who were poor.

Kashmir Needs History, Not Historical Humiliation

There is much that today’s Kashmir can learn from its past.

The younger generation should know what poverty looked like before independence. They should know about agrarian relations, land reforms and the Naya Kashmir vision. They should understand the social world in which their grandparents lived.

But they should also learn that poverty never erased human dignity.

History should make us grateful, informed and thoughtful—not arrogant about the circumstances into which we were born.

The best response to a controversial historical statement is therefore not another insult. It is better history.

Let historians examine the archives.

Let researchers trace the origins of phrases attributed to political movements.

Let elderly Kashmiris tell younger generations what life was actually like.

Let political leaders explain the achievements and failures of their predecessors honestly.

And let the public distinguish between documented history, political rhetoric and contemporary interpretation.

Kashmir’s history is too valuable to be reduced to a political slogan.

The pheran, yezaar and shalwar were never merely pieces of cloth. They were part of the lives of generations of Kashmiris—farmers, artisans, labourers, teachers, traders, mothers and children.

Some lived with abundance. Many lived with scarcity.

But they all belonged to the same Kashmir.

That is perhaps the most important lesson of this entire controversy:

Economic progress should be celebrated without humiliating the people who survived before it.

A society that truly respects its history does not laugh at the poverty of its ancestors.

It learns from it.

And if there was an inqilaab, its greatest achievement was not that Kashmiris eventually acquired more clothes.

It was that generations of Kashmiris struggled for a life in which dignity, opportunity and economic security could become accessible to the ordinary person.

That is the history worth remembering.

Imdad Saqi

In contemporary political discourse, few strategies are as predictable as the politics of distraction. When governments struggle to demonstrate tangible progress, when campaign promises remain unfulfilled, and when pressing public concerns continue to demand answers, political attention can easily be redirected towards controversies that generate emotion without requiring substantive solutions.

The recent political fixation on traditional Kashmiri attire—particularly the debates surrounding the pajama and izzat (honour)—offers a striking example. Whatever the original intention behind such remarks, reducing Kashmir’s complex social history to questions of what people wore is neither intellectually serious nor politically productive.

At a time when people are concerned about employment, inflation, healthcare, education, environmental degradation and the future of Kashmir’s young generation, public discourse deserves better than manufactured cultural battles.

Clothing Is Not a Measure of Civilisation

Much of the rhetoric surrounding historical Kashmiri clothing appears to rest on a simplistic assumption: that adopting modern Western clothing automatically represents social progress.

It does not.

A society’s advancement cannot be measured by whether its people wear trousers, shirts, suits or traditional garments. Clothing reflects climate, economy, culture, occupation, social customs and historical circumstances. It tells us something about a society, but it cannot by itself determine its moral or intellectual development.

Our ancestors may have dressed differently from people today, but many lived with a profound sense of dignity, community and social responsibility. Conversely, modern societies, despite their sophisticated clothing and technology, are hardly immune from corruption, exploitation, inequality, intolerance and moral decline.

Modernity is therefore not a matter of changing one’s clothes. It is reflected in institutions, education, equality, scientific temper, economic opportunity, social responsibility and respect for human dignity.

History Must Be Read in Its Context

To ridicule the dress of historical Kashmiris without understanding the circumstances in which they lived is to strip history of its context.

Kashmir passed through successive political dispensations, including Buddhist, Brahmanical, Shah Mir, Chak, Mughal, Afghan, Sikh and Dogra rule. These periods were very different from one another and should not be placed into one undifferentiated historical category. Yet large sections of the population, particularly peasants and labourers, experienced poverty, taxation, political instability and limited economic opportunity at different points in Kashmir’s history.

For ordinary people, clothing was often determined by necessity rather than fashion. Climate, availability of material, occupation and economic circumstances mattered enormously. Judging earlier generations by the standards of contemporary consumer culture is therefore historically unfair.

The accounts of European travellers also provide glimpses into the difficult conditions of the time. George Forster, who travelled through Kashmir in the eighteenth century, wrote appreciatively about the appearance and character of Kashmiri women while also describing the hardships he observed in the valley. Such travel accounts, while valuable historical sources, must themselves be read critically and within the limitations and prejudices of eighteenth-century European observers.

The larger point remains important: a people who endured poverty and political hardship should not be mocked for the material limitations imposed upon them.

Poverty Was Not a Cultural Defect

One of the most troubling aspects of arguments about historical clothing is the tendency to convert material deprivation into a cultural or moral deficiency.

Poor people do not become backward because they cannot afford fashionable clothes. A farmer wearing a traditional pheran is not less dignified than a person wearing a suit. A labourer’s poverty is not evidence of his lack of civilisation.

Indeed, Kashmir’s traditional dress evolved partly in response to its geography and climate. The pheran, for instance, was not merely a cultural symbol; it was also practical protection against the valley’s harsh winters.

Culture should therefore be understood rather than ridiculed. It can evolve, adapt and change without requiring a society to develop contempt for its own past.

Progress Has Many Authors

Political leaders often speak as though every visible change in society is the direct consequence of their leadership. Such claims deserve scrutiny.

The transformation of Kashmir—from limited connectivity and traditional economies to smartphones, digital communication, modern education, expanding infrastructure and greater access to information—is the product of multiple forces. Governments matter, certainly. But so do ordinary citizens, entrepreneurs, teachers, workers, technological change, private investment, globalisation and successive generations that have adapted to changing circumstances.

No individual government can claim ownership of historical progress.

Political leadership should instead be judged by measurable outcomes: How many sustainable jobs have been created? How accessible is healthcare? Are schools providing quality education? Is governance transparent? Are young people receiving meaningful opportunities? Are Kashmir’s forests, wetlands, rivers and agricultural lands being protected?

These are harder questions than a debate over clothing—but they are the questions that actually matter.

The Politics of Outrage

Political controversy has always been an effective instrument because outrage is easier to generate than policy.

A provocative remark can dominate television panels and social-media feeds for days. Politicians can exchange accusations, supporters can mobilise, and ordinary citizens can be drawn into arguments over identity and culture.

Meanwhile, more difficult questions disappear from the public conversation.

This is where citizens and the media have a responsibility. Not every political statement deserves to become the central issue of public debate. Democracy requires scrutiny, but it also requires proportion. A society that spends disproportionate energy debating symbolic controversies while neglecting unemployment, healthcare, education, environmental protection and institutional accountability risks allowing political theatre to replace governance.

Kashmir Deserves a More Serious Conversation

There is nothing wrong with discussing Kashmiri history, language, culture or traditional clothing. In fact, these subjects deserve serious scholarship and informed public debate.

What is problematic is using history selectively to belittle people, score political points or divert attention from contemporary governance.

Kashmir’s past contains both pride and pain. It contains remarkable intellectual traditions, craftsmanship, poetry, scholarship and cultural resilience, but it also contains periods of poverty, political domination and social hardship. Mature societies do not erase either side of that history.

We should neither romanticise the past nor insult it.

The real measure of modernity is not whether Kashmiris have abandoned the clothes of their ancestors. It is whether today’s Kashmir provides its people with dignity, opportunity, justice and security.

The public deserves political leadership that talks about jobs rather than just slogans, healthcare rather than theatrics, education rather than tokenism, environmental protection rather than cosmetic development, and accountable governance rather than perpetual controversy.

Political debate should illuminate public problems—not manufacture new ones.

If pajama politics is consuming the public conversation, perhaps it is time to ask a more important question:

What are we being distracted from?

Kashmir does not need another controversy about what its ancestors wore. It needs an honest conversation about how its people live today—and what kind of future we intend to build for the generations that will come after us.

Shalware-e-Inqilaab: Beyond the Politics of Distraction

By Dr Rizwan Rumi

The recent controversy surrounding traditional Kashmiri attire has once again demonstrated how easily public discourse can be diverted from substantive questions of governance towards symbolic disputes. Remarks attributed to Tanvir Sadiq regarding the historical clothing of Kashmiris have generated considerable discussion, particularly around the expressions Be-Yezaar and Ba-Yezaar, and the political symbolism associated with them.

Whatever historical point was intended, the controversy deserves a more thoughtful response than either unquestioning political defence or exaggerated outrage. History must be discussed with accuracy, sensitivity and a proper understanding of the circumstances in which people lived. More importantly, the material limitations of our ancestors should never be presented in a manner that diminishes their dignity.

When Clothing Becomes a Political Argument

The distinction between Be-Yezaar and Ba-Yezaar has been associated with the socio-economic history of Kashmir and the political language of the Naya Kashmir movement. In that context, clothing could serve as a symbol of material deprivation, economic improvement and social change.

However, political symbolism must not be confused with the inherent worth of the people it seeks to represent.

A farmer who could not afford multiple garments was not less dignified than a person who could. A labourer wearing a traditional pheran was not less civilised than someone wearing trousers. Poverty is an economic condition, not a measure of human worth.

This distinction is particularly important in Kashmir, where clothing has historically been shaped by climate, occupation, availability of material, social customs and economic circumstances. The pheran, for instance, was not merely a cultural garment; it was also a practical response to the valley’s harsh winters.

To judge earlier generations by the standards of contemporary consumer culture is therefore historically unfair.

History Must Be Read in Its Context

Kashmir’s history is neither simple nor uniform. The valley passed through successive political dispensations, including Buddhist, Brahmanical, Shah Mir, Chak, Mughal, Afghan, Sikh and Dogra rule. These periods differed significantly in their institutions, social structures and economic conditions.

Yet, across different periods, large sections of the population experienced poverty, taxation, political instability and limited economic opportunity. Under Dogra rule, particularly, historical accounts describe considerable agrarian distress and economic hardship.

Such conditions inevitably influenced the lives of ordinary people, including what they could afford to wear.

The historical distinction between Be-Yezaar and Ba-Yezaar, where used in political discourse, should therefore be understood as a reference to material conditions and social transformation—not as a judgement on the character, culture or self-respect of Kashmiris.

The Naya Kashmir movement and the land reforms associated with Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s administration are important parts of this history. The abolition of large landed estates and the redistribution of land to cultivating peasants represented a major transformation in rural Kashmir. These developments can be discussed critically, but they should not be reduced to slogans about clothing.

Historical progress is meaningful when it improves people’s lives. It becomes misleading when it is used merely to claim political superiority.

Dr Rizwan Rumi’s Perspective: Dignity Is Not a Dress Code

The central issue, in my view, is not whether Kashmiris once wore trousers or whether they wear them today. The real issue is whether we have learned to distinguish between material progress and human dignity.

Our ancestors may have lived with fewer resources, but they possessed their own systems of honour, community, responsibility and cultural expression. Their lives were not empty simply because they did not conform to modern standards of dress.

Indeed, the history of Kashmir contains remarkable traditions of scholarship, craftsmanship, poetry, spirituality and social resilience. These achievements cannot be measured by the number of garments a person owned.

Nor should modern clothing be treated as proof of moral or intellectual advancement. A society may be technologically sophisticated and still struggle with corruption, inequality, intolerance and injustice. Conversely, people living in difficult material circumstances may demonstrate extraordinary courage, generosity and dignity.

Modernity is not a matter of changing one’s clothes. It is reflected in education, scientific temper, equality, institutional accountability, economic opportunity and respect for human rights.

That is the distinction our public discourse must recover.

The Politics of Distraction

The controversy also raises a broader question about the nature of political debate.

When governments face difficult questions about employment, healthcare, education, inflation, environmental degradation and public accountability, there is always a temptation to shift attention towards issues that generate emotion more easily than solutions.

A debate about traditional attire can occupy television panels and social-media feeds for days. It can produce accusations, counter-accusations and competing claims of cultural authenticity. Yet, while the argument continues, the more difficult questions of governance remain unanswered.

This does not mean that cultural or historical questions are unimportant. They are essential to understanding Kashmir. But they deserve serious scholarship, not political theatrics.

The public should be able to discuss history without being compelled to choose between competing political camps.

Progress Has Many Authors

Political leaders often speak as though every visible improvement in society is the direct consequence of their leadership. Such claims deserve scrutiny.

Governments matter. But so do ordinary citizens, teachers, workers, entrepreneurs, technological change, private investment, globalisation and successive generations that have adapted to changing circumstances.

No individual government can claim ownership of historical progress.

Political leadership should instead be judged by measurable outcomes:

How many sustainable jobs have been created?

How accessible is healthcare?

Are schools providing quality education?

Is governance transparent?

Are young people receiving meaningful opportunities?

Are Kashmir’s forests, wetlands, rivers and agricultural lands being protected?

These are harder questions than a debate over clothing, but they are the questions that actually matter.

The Responsibility of Public Representatives

Public representatives carry a special responsibility because their words influence public opinion. Historical observations, particularly when they concern poverty, identity or cultural practices, must be expressed with care.

A poorly worded statement can easily be interpreted as an insult to ordinary people, even when the speaker intends to make a broader historical point.

The appropriate response is neither to dismiss every criticism as politically motivated nor to turn every controversial remark into a permanent political battle. It is to insist on accuracy, context and accountability.

If a statement is historically meaningful, it should be explained properly. If its wording is insensitive, that should be acknowledged. And if the controversy is being used to avoid more pressing public concerns, citizens should be willing to ask why.