From a perusal of its history, Kashmir appears to be a land of hospitality. Shah Mir, the founder of the Shah Miri dynasty, and Lanker or Langar Chak, the progenitor of the Chak dynasty, were well received. Though Lankar himself had not the distinction of wearing a regal crown, his descendants gradually so strengthened themselves that they were able to exert very great influence on the politics of Kashmir: to enthrone and dethrone Kings, and finally to wield the sceptre.
The history of the Chaks, to whom a Dardic origin is ascribed, bears a strange resemblance to that of the Marathas. The Chaks- called the Chakresas or Chakras in the Kashmir Chronicles-gradually rose from obscurity, and forced their existence even upon the attention of a wise ruler like Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin, whose penetrating eye enabled him to predict the sovereignty they finally acquired. They sought and entered service with the nobles. They thus strengthened and consolidated their position till, at last, they were able to assert themselves under the redoubtable leadership of Kaji or Qazi Chak and became an important factor in the politics of kashmir.
It is noteworthy that the rise of the Chaks synchronizes with their conversion to the Shi’ite doctrine promulgated by Mir Shams-ud-Din Iraqi, whom Malik Haider Chadura calls Shaikh Shams-ud-Din Muhammad Iraqi, in the first reign of Sultan Fath Shah when Hussain Chak became a Shia. And Husain’s descendants continued to be Shias. To clarify the link it may b stated that Lankar Chak’s fourth descendant, named Pandu Chak, had flourished as a feudal lord in the time of Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin. Pandu had two sons, Himmat and husain. Husain, as we said, become Shiá while Himmat remained sunni. Himmat, however, had no sovereignty among his decendants, though they occupied high positions in civil and military employ. Shams, Rigi, Masud and Bahram are notable instances in this line of Himmat. It would be incorrect to say that change over to Shi’ism by Husain’s line had fired the Chaks with an ambition for the throne. History has not yet proved it. the faxt mut not, however, be omitted that they were already strong enough to interfere in the trend of events and exert their influence when internecine war between Muhammad Shah and Fath Shah gave them time to make hey.
All through their career, either as partisans of a particular king, or as wielders of regal authority, they did not give much promise of their statesmanship. They showed narrow-mindedness too. No Shah Miri showed such religious bias against Shias as Ghazi Chak and husain Chak displayed against the sunnis of Kashmir. The bitterness of feeling resulting in a number of serious clashes between Shias and sunnis- and their number is put down at eighteen-earned for the Shias of Kashmir the notoriety of Be-Pir like the Sunni of Balkh. The Chaks were clever at intrigue too. But it must be admitted that they were good solidiers on the battlefield. Their exploits cannot be easily forgotten. Their exploits cannot be easily forgotten. Their patriotism and martial spirit were a great advantage to Kashmir. One can, therefore, emphatically suggest that but for them, Kashmir would have fallen an easy prey to the ambition of Haidar Dughlat or Babur and his immediate successor, in rivalry of whom the Chak rulers took the title of Badshah in place of Sultan adopted by the Shah Miris.
Reference:
Sufi,G.M.D (1996). Kashmir Under The Mughals. Kashir: Being A History Of Kashmir(pp.217-218) Delhi:Capital Publishing House.
