How the Relic’s disappearance from Srinagar’s Hazratbal shrine triggered an uprising, redefining Kashmir’s politics and leading to war
By Iftikhar Gilani
On a bitterly cold December night in 1963, a seismic event shattered the deceptive calm of Kashmir. The theft of the Prophet Muhammad’s sacred relic from the Hazratbal shrine sent shockwaves across the valley, igniting mass protests and permanently altering Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s understanding of the Kashmiri people.
Until then, Nehru had perceived Kashmiris as politically passive, a belief that was overturned when the uprising against the relic’s disappearance snowballed into a direct challenge to India’s control over the region.
Historian and former bureaucrat Khalid Bashir Ahmad meticulously documents these dramatic events in his book, Kashmir: Shock, Rage, Upheaval: The Theft of the Prophet’s Relic, the Unrest, and Its Aftermath.
This was not merely an outburst of religious sentiment but a movement with profound political consequences. The mass mobilization of Kashmiris was unprecedented since 1953, the year Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was dismissed as the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir.
The unrest opened the doors for a significant diplomatic engagement: Nehru agreed to initiate talks with Pakistan’s President Ayub Khan, while Sheikh Abdullah was permitted to visit Pakistan in an effort to resolve the Kashmir dispute.
However, Nehru’s sudden death in May 1964 derailed these efforts, and within a year, tensions escalated into the Indo-Pak War of 1965. To this day, the mystery of the relic’s theft remains unsolved, with no formal investigation ever conducted.
For years, Nehru had viewed the Kashmiri population as largely submissive. In 1952, when concerns arose over possible resistance to Jammu and Kashmir’s formal accession to India, he dismissed such worries with a patronizing remark:
“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.”
This belief underpinned India’s Kashmir policy, facilitated through the autocratic rule of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, who had replaced Sheikh Abdullah.
Bakshi maintained control through economic incentives and repression, ensuring political docility. However, the 1963–64 uprising exposed this assumption as a grave miscalculation.
The theft of the sacred relic from the Hazratbal shrine was a sophisticated operation. The thief, well aware of its precise location, accessed the Hujra-e-Khas (inner sanctum) without disturbing any other objects.
This was not a random burglary; it was a targeted act, possibly with deep political undercurrents. The Kashmir Valley erupted in anger. The stolen relic was not just a religious object—it was an emblem of identity, and its disappearance was perceived as an attack on Kashmir’s collective dignity.
The public response to the theft was immediate and intense. Protests engulfed the valley, cutting across political and ideological divides. The unrest led to the formation of the Action Committee, which brought together previously opposing factions, including the Plebiscite Front, Jamaat-e-Islami, the Political Conference, and Jamiat-e-Hamdaniya. For the first time since the 1930s, Sheikh Abdullah’s supporters and opponents stood on the same platform.
At the helm of this movement were young leaders such as Mirwaiz Maulvi Mohammad Farooq, Maulana Mohammad Masoodi, and Maulvi Abbas Ansari, who played pivotal roles in organizing protests.
In the months leading up to the theft, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad resigned but continued to wield influence through his handpicked successor, Khwaja Shamsuddin. When thousands gathered at Lal Chowk in Srinagar, Bakshi’s cousin Abdul Rashid attempted to pacify the protestors, only to be met with defiance.
A remark from one of his security guards mocking the protestors’ poverty triggered an explosive reaction—an enraged demonstrator hurled a kangri (a traditional Kashmiri firepot) at him. The situation escalated as angry mobs torched cinemas, hotels, and even the Special Police headquarters. The police responded with gunfire, killing three people and further inflaming tensions.
As Srinagar teetered on the brink of chaos, the Indian Army was deployed. A critical moment unfolded when nearly 20,000 protestors marched toward Budshah Chowk, where security forces stood ready to open fire. However, timely intervention by police official L.D. Thakur averted a bloodbath. His decision to negotiate with protest leaders rather than suppress them with brute force prevented further escalation.
In New Delhi, Nehru was deeply alarmed. He confided in his aides:
“Everything we have done in Kashmir over the past fifteen years is at risk of being undone by this single incident.”
Despite the unrest, Kashmir remarkably remained free of communal strife. However, tensions spiked in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), where Hindu minorities were attacked in Khulna and Jessore, triggering retaliatory violence against Muslims in Calcutta and Rourkela.
On January 4, 1964, the government announced the recovery of the relic. But this failed to quell the protests, as people demanded an independent authentication. The unrest now shifted from religious outrage to political agitation, reviving calls for a UN-supervised plebiscite. At Lal Chowk, Molvi Mohammad Saeed Masoodi publicly demanded Sheikh Abdullah’s release, sensing a potential shift in Kashmir’s political dynamics.
On April 8, 1964, Nehru finally conceded to pressure and ordered the release of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. Three weeks later, he hosted Abdullah in Delhi and encouraged him to visit Pakistan for peace talks. By May, Abdullah was in Rawalpindi, meeting President Ayub Khan to explore a diplomatic resolution to the Kashmir dispute.
However, Nehru’s death on May 27, 1964, shattered all hopes of a settlement. With him gone, India’s leadership lacked both the vision and political will to pursue dialogue with Pakistan. Within a year, tensions escalated into the 1965 Indo-Pak war, where armed infiltrators attempted to help the rebellion in Kashmir, leading to full-scale military conflict between the two nations.
The official inquiry into the relic’s theft was a farce. Three individuals—Abdul Rahim Bande, Abdul Rashid, and Qadir Bhatt—were named as suspects. However, Qadir Bhatt did not even exist, exposing the investigation’s hollowness. Intelligence Bureau chief B.N. Malik took direct control of the probe, sidelining the state government. Years later, he cryptically remarked:
“Who the real culprit was, where he came from, and why he stole the sacred relic—this secret will remain buried in my heart and will go with me to my grave.”
Adding to the intrigue, Deputy Superintendent of Police Ghulam Hassan Kawosa, who was reportedly close to uncovering the truth, was found dead in his home under mysterious circumstances. His death, officially ruled a suicide, was widely believed to be an assassination.
A Mystery That Endures
Even after Sheikh Abdullah returned to power in 1975, he remained silent on the relic’s theft. Rumours persisted that he had sought to unearth the truth but abandoned the effort after reviewing classified files.
Others, including Chief Minister Syed Mir Qasim, also refrained from addressing the matter.
The disappearance of the sacred relic was more than just an unsolved crime—it was the catalyst for Kashmir’s most significant uprising since 1953. It shattered the illusion of Kashmiri docility, forcing New Delhi to reckon with the Valley’s political reality.
Six decades later, the events of 1963-64 remain a haunting chapter in Kashmir’s history, symbolizing both the resilience of its people and the enduring mystery surrounding the theft that changed everything.
